Desayuno ... ¿Antes de construir la Justa, que usaba para cocinar con leña? Otra: .... ¿Antes de tener la cocina Justa cuánto tiempo duraba un tambo de Gas?
Transitioning towards Sustainable Cooking Systems: With a Case Study of Improved Cookstoves in Rural El Salvador by Aaron Redman
A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY August 2010
Transitioning towards Sustainable Cooking Systems: With a Case Study of Improved Cookstoves in Rural El Salvador by Aaron Redman
has been approved June 2010
Graduate Supervisory Committee: Aaron Golub, Chair Hallie Eakin Rimjhim Aggarwal
ACCEPTED BY THE GRADUATE COLLEGE
ABSTRACT Over 80% of rural residents in the developing world utilize biomass as their principal fuel, with serious consequences for their health, climate change, household economics and personal well-being. This problem requires a Sustainability approach which this thesis does by bringing together several theories- transition management, socio-technical regimes, diffusion and livelihoods, bridging multi-disciplines, incorporating different forms of knowledge as well as including a future orientation. A deep literature review of biomass cooking was conducted and fieldwork carried out during the summer of 2009 in the village of La Comunidad, El Salvador. Over forty interviews were completed, principally with households utilizing an improved woodburning cookstove (ICS). Based on the literature and the fieldwork, a Vision for a Sustainable cooking system is developed, which includes criteria for health, climate change, household financial and non-financial costs and the cooking experience. Strategies for achieving this vision are examined next. For several reasons, modern fuels such as electricity and gas (LPG) are not strategies which will on their own achieve the Sustainable Vision. Another strategy, efficient, biomass-burning stoves appears to have potential, but its viability is still largely unverified. This thesis focuses on an ICS known as the Justa, which was disseminated in La Comunidad in 2007. Using the diffusion framework the adoption of the Justa ICS in this community is examined. The Justa has been successfully adopted and not a single household has become disenchanted and abandoned it. The decision process and other variables which
iii
influenced the adoption of the Justa are also scrutinized. This work yields several possibilities for enhancing the transition to a Sustainable cooking system. It has long been assumed that households will switch completely to modern fuels, once given the means and the opportunity. My fieldwork in El Salvador confirms other research showing that households actually stack fuels and stoves, rather than switching between them. Stacking does not seem to be a transitory phase while studying it reveals important information about household preferences, strategies and constraints. This paper proposes that the Sustainable Vision can best be achieved through stacking of various cooking technologies, rather than by promoting a single type.
iv
This thesis is dedicated to Erin Frisk, without whose endless love and support through all the many stages, including two months in El Salvador, it would never have been completed.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the collaboration and support of many people. I thank Trees, Water & People for their extensive support of my research, both informationally and financially. In particular I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Armando Hernandez, the country director in El Salvador who gave me several days of his time for interviews and assisted me in tracking down whatever information I requested. The School of Sustainability must also be acknowledged for the financial support they provided which made the trip possible. More important the faculty and fellow students of the school have informed and inspired my quest for understanding improved cookstoves from a Sustainability perspective and not settling for the simple, traditional approach. In particular I want to thank my committee members Hallie Eakin and Rimjhim Aggarwal and particularly my chair and adviser Aaron Golub, for their guidance and support. With their help I was empowered to explore and find my own way, while still producing robust and meaningful research. Finally, the people of La Comunidad, El Salvador, must be acknowledged, whose friendship and assistance proved invaluable. I want to thank Rolando Barillas who helped me set everything up for the fieldwork in El Salvador, and whose dedication to his community is a continuing inspiration. Carmen Lopez, Mauricio Juarez, Raul Lopez, Isabel Urias and the many others who welcomed me into their homes are the heart and motivation for this thesis.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ xi 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 2. THEORY .................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Socio-Technical Regimes....................................................................................... 4 2.2 Transition Management ......................................................................................... 5 2.3 Diffusion of Innovations ........................................................................................ 7 2.4 Livelihood Perspective ......................................................................................... 11 3. RESEARCH METHODS .......................................................................................... 13 3.1 Description of Methods........................................................................................ 13 3.2 Rural Focused Research ....................................................................................... 15 4. DEFINING THE PROBLEM AND ENVISIONING A SUSTAINABLE COOKING SYSTEM ....................................................................................................................... 17 4.1 Health .................................................................................................................. 17 4.2 Deforestation ....................................................................................................... 20 4.3 Climate Change Mitigation .................................................................................. 22 4.4 Direct Financial Impact on Rural Households ...................................................... 24 4.5 Non-Financial Economic Impact on Rural Households ........................................ 25 4.5a Household Model ........................................................................................... 25 4.5b Non-Financial Costs to Rural Households ...................................................... 26 4.6 The Cooking Experience ...................................................................................... 30 vii
Page 4.6a Cooking Local Foods ..................................................................................... 30 4.6b Comfort ......................................................................................................... 31 4.6c Cleanliness ..................................................................................................... 32 4.6d Saving Time ................................................................................................... 33 4.6e Values ............................................................................................................ 33 4.7 Future Uncertainty ............................................................................................... 36 5. STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING THE SUSTAINABLE COOKING VISION ........ 37 5.1 Strategy: Modern Fuels ........................................................................................ 37 5.2 Strategy: Improved Biomass Cookstove ............................................................... 40 6. THE CASE OF AN IMPROVED COOKSTOVE INTERVENTION IN EL SALVADOR ................................................................................................................. 44 7. DIFFUSION OF THE JUSTA IN LA COMUNIDAD ................................................ 49 7.1 Critical Mass........................................................................................................ 49 7.2 The Innovation-Decision Process ......................................................................... 51 7.2a Evidence from the Literature .......................................................................... 51 7.2b The Innovation-Decision Process in La Comunidad ....................................... 53 7.3 Variables Determining the Rate of Adoption – Literature..................................... 56 7.3a Relative Advantage ........................................................................................ 56 7.3b Compatibility ................................................................................................. 57 7.3c Relative Disadvantages .................................................................................. 58 7.3d Demographics ................................................................................................ 58 viii
Page 7.4 Variables Determining the Rate of Adoption – La Comunidad ............................. 59 7.4a Relative Advantage ........................................................................................ 59 7.4b Compatibility ................................................................................................. 61 7.4c Relative Disadvantage .................................................................................... 62 7.4d Demographics ................................................................................................ 64 7.5 Summary of Diffusion-Related Findings .............................................................. 65 8. STACKING VS. THE LADDER ............................................................................... 67 8.1 Energy Ladder and Stacking in the Literature....................................................... 67 8.2 Evidence for Fuel Stacking in La Comunidad ...................................................... 71 8.3 Stove Stacking in La Comunidad ......................................................................... 72 8.3a Food – Stove Connection ............................................................................... 73 8.3b LPG and Stove Stacking ................................................................................ 74 8.3c Justa and Stove Stacking ................................................................................ 75 8.3d Open Fire and Stove Stacking ........................................................................ 76 8.3e Transitory Stove Stacking? ............................................................................. 76 8.4 Stove Use Index ................................................................................................... 77 8.4a Justa and Stove Use Index .............................................................................. 79 8.4b LPG and Stove Use Index .............................................................................. 80 8.4c Open Fire and Stove Use Index ...................................................................... 80 8.5 Why Stove Stacking Matters ................................................................................ 81 9. THE IMPACTS OF THE JUSTA ON LA COMUNIDAD ......................................... 83 ix
Page 9.1 Impact – Health ................................................................................................... 83 9.2 Impact – Fuel Use ................................................................................................ 84 9.3 The Impact of Stove Stacking .............................................................................. 85 10. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 87 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 90 APPENDIX I INTERVIEW GUIDE-SPANISH .......................................................... 101 APPENDIX II INTERVIEW GUIDE- ENGLISH ....................................................... 110 APPENDIX III INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL .......................... 116 APPENDIX IV WHO CAUSE OF DEATH ................................................................ 117 APPENDIX V STOVE USE INDEX CALCULATIONS ............................................ 118 APPENDIX VI REDUCTION IN FUELWOOD USE CALCULATIONS .................. 120
x
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Representation of the Transition Management Cycle .........................................6 Figure 2 Theoretical illustration of the s-shaped cumulative adoption curve (marking the critical mass at around 16%) with the adopter categories Source: (Tanahashi, 2008) ........9 Figure 3 Rogers (2003) adoption rate determining variables (p. 222) ............................. 11 Figure 4 Satellite image of La Comunidad and its location in El Salvador...................... 15 Figure 5 Causes of death combined from several WHO sources ..................................... 18 Figure 6 A living fence in La Comunidad which is pruned regularly for fuelwood ......... 22 Figure 7 Graphs of census data from Guatemala and India which show that fuelwood use does not decline much in the higher income brackets (to the right) Source: (Heltberg, 2003, p. 28) ................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 8 Vision of a Sustainable Cooking System with Criteria ..................................... 35 Figure 9 The first Justa stove built in La Comunidad continues to be heavily used over 2 years later ...................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 10 Map of the Households interviewed in La Comunidad ................................... 47 Figure 11 S-curve among interviewed households for adoption of LPG ......................... 49 Figure 12 Theoretical projection of the cumulative adoption of Justas in La Comunidad ...................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 13 Stages of the innovation-decision process with notes relevant to ICS adoption ...................................................................................................................................... 53
xi
Page Figure 14 Percentage of Justa ICS adopters who gave the following unprompted answers ...................................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 15 Table comparing census data with interviewed Justa Adopters (TV, Fridge and DVD ownership has been adjusted to only count those with electricity) ......................... 64 Figure 16 An illustration of the classic energy ladder. Households are assumed to move to higher boxes as their incomes rise. Source: (Duflo, Greenstone, & Hanna, 2008, p. 8) ...................................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 17 Radar diagram comparing three cooking technologies in Mexico Source: (Masera, Diaz, & Berrueta, 2005, p. 34)......................................................................... 70 Figure 18 Percentage of households using just biomass fuels compared to the percentage using both biomass and LPG for their cooking in La Comunidad. .................................. 71 Figure 19 Among the 27 households interviewed 5 different combinations of cooking technologies were used, the most common being all three .............................................. 72 Figure 20 Percentage of household using a specific stove to prepare each dish............... 74 Figure 21 Stove Use Index that rates the extent of use for each stove type for each household. 10 being highest and 1 being lowest. ............................................................ 78 Figure 22 Comparative results of self-reported health symptoms from cooking.............. 84
xii
1
1. INTRODUCTION Research and action in Sustainability Science is driven by a class of real-world problems often described as „wicked‟ (Clark & Dickson, 2003)(Kates, et al., 2001) (Rotmans & Loorbach, 2009). These problems have proven difficult to solve with traditional approaches. Sustainability problems are typically embedded in complex, socio-ecological systems, and operate across many scales, have negative consequences in social, environmental, and economic spheres, require multiple ways of knowing and are highly persistent. This paper is focused on the Sustainability problem of the 2 billion people in rural areas cooking with unvented biomass fuels, encompassing over 80% of rural residents in the developing world (International Energy Agency, 2006). This ancient cooking technology has a host of negative health, economic and environmental consequences. This system is so difficult to dislodge because of the many different fuels used to cook a vast array of foods, the overlapping of market and non-market systems and embedded, cultural food values, while at the same time the consequences and determinants of these cooking systems vary across scales, from regional ecological systems to national health systems to global climate change, making this highly complex system a Sustainability problem. It is urgent that Sustainability approaches be brought to bear on this problem, as change has come too slow even in the face of concerted national and international efforts. On the current path things are not likely to change; the International Energy Agency (2006) in fact, estimates that the number of people cooking with biomass will actually go up by 2030.
2 This thesis combines a theoretical Sustainability approach, with extensive literature and fieldwork from El Salvador with the goal of investigating how this problem can be best addressed. Specifically, what are the problems of the current situation, what is the vision of a Sustainable cooking system and can current strategies achieve this vision in particularly examining the case of improved cookstoves in a village in El Salvador. Theories of transition management, socio-technical regimes, diffusion of innovations, and livelihoods are brought together for the first time. Rather than attempting to integrate these ideas into one grand framework, the aspects of each theory which are useful for addressing this Sustainability problem are highlighted and later utilized. Before strategies or transitions should be discussed the problem must be clearly understood and a vision for the future developed. Based upon the literature and my fieldwork in El Salvador, a Vision for a Sustainable cooking system is elaborated which outlines criteria for health, climate change, household financial and non-financial costs, and the cooking experience. Strategies for achieving this vision are examined next. For several reasons, modern fuels such as electricity and gas (LPG) do not appear to be strategies which on their own will achieve the Sustainable Vision. Another strategy, efficient, biomassburning stoves (ICS) appears to have potential, but its viability is still largely unverified. This thesis focuses on an ICS known as the Justa, which was disseminated in La Comunidad in 2007. Using the diffusion framework the adoption of the Justa ICS in this community is examined. The Justa has been successfully adopted and not a single household has become disenchanted and abandoned it. The decision process and other
3 variables which influenced the adoption of the Justa are also scrutinized. This work yields several possibilities for enhancing the transition to a Sustainable cooking system. It has long been assumed that households will switch completely to modern fuels, once given the means and the opportunity. My fieldwork in El Salvador confirms other research showing that households actually stack fuels and stoves, rather than switching between them. Stacking does not seem to be a transitory phase while studying it reveals important information about household preferences, strategies and constraints. This paper proposes that the Sustainable Vision can best be achieved through stacking of various cooking technologies, rather than by promoting a single type.
4 2. THEORY 2.1 Socio-Technical Regimes There is often a temptation in Sustainability to seek a solution to problems by switching out one technology for a „better‟ one but problems can rarely be solved so simply. This is partly because the use of a specific technology does not happen in isolation. Rather, there exist socio-technical systems which are configurations of technologies, policies, cultural practices, infrastructure, etc, which operate in concert in order to realize certain ends. “Only in association with human agency, social structures and organizations does technology fulfill functions (Geels, 2002, p. 1257).” Some sociotechnical systems are particularly stable over time because they are deeply embedded in society; these are known as regimes (Elzen, Geels, & Green, 2004, p. 7). The stability of the socio-technical regime is influenced by two factors; the landscape (external social and environmental structures and context) and the internal constellation of characteristics of the regime itself. The concept of socio-technical systems is commonly used as the framework for the defining the problem stage of transition management (discussed in the following section). The cooking systems of the rural developing world are a perfect example of a dynamic but, highly stable and persistent socio-technical regime. Understanding that the cooking stove as a part of a socio-technical regime rather than as an isolated technology, helps to explain why efforts to replace biomass cooking with a clean technology has not been very successful. Many researchers suggest that the best way to change sociotechnical regimes is through a process they term, transition management.
5
2.2 Transition Management Sustainability is concerned with the treatment of problems and with strategies which may offer paths to improved outcomes (Vob, Bauknecht, & Kemp, 2006, p. 4), in other words, how to shift from an undesirable state with many complex problems to a more Sustainable state. Complex socio-ecological systems do sometimes shift, without management, to new states- this is known as an evolutionary transition (Elzen, Geels, & Green, 2004), but historically, evolutionary transitions have not created socially and ecologically Sustainable outcomes (Smith & Stirling, 2008, p. 7) and cannot be counted on to do so in the future. Sustainability, thus, demands actions which will influence systems towards goal oriented transitions. One approach to influencing the process of change in complex systems is Transition Management (Rotmans & Loorbach, 2009). Transition management proposes that, with a cyclical and iterative approach to governance, system shifts can be made to more desirable states.
6
Figure 1 Representation of the Transition Management Cycle
The process of transition management can be boiled down into a cyclical, fourstage process (figure 1). The first stage is to seek to understand the current system and the problems associated with it. From this, one moves on in the second stage to developing a Sustainability vision and the goals necessary to reach it. In the third stage various experimental pathways to achieving this vision are promulgated and promoted (these various pathways are known as niches or strategies). The final stage is learning from this process and adapting the problem definition, vision and possible pathways reflexively based upon what is learned and starting the cycle over again. “Transition management can be best described as a process of learning-by-doing and doing-bylearning (Vob, Bauknecht, & Kemp, 2006, p. 117).” The idea is that through this cyclical process, the experimental pathways will be refined, merged or will die out, until
7 eventually a new, Sustainable pathway emerges which achieves the vision. Additionally, it is widely agreed that in order to be effective, stakeholders must be included in all stages of the transition cycle.
2.3 Diffusion of Innovations The problems associated with the current cooking socio-technical regime (in rural areas of developing countries) stem primarily from the open burning of biomass fuels, a basic technology virtually unchanged from prehistory. While there are many aspects to the cooking system, any transition to a more Sustainable system state will require the replacement or modification of this open burning technology. Unfortunately while transition management provides and general framework for developing strategies (such as new technologies), it does not offer much about how to disseminate these strategies widely. The spread and adoption of new technologies has been widely studied by other researchers over the years and distilled into the framework of diffusion theory. Everett Rogers classic and comprehensive work Diffusion of Innovations, now in its 5th edition and according to Google Scholar, cited over 25,000 times, provides a solid and thorough foundation for understanding and utilizing diffusion theory. Diffusion theory has several principal advantages: it encourages and incorporates multidisciplinary approaches, it is a framework for generalizing specific findings and it is a clear cut and easy-to-use model (Rogers, 2003, pp. 103-105). Most importantly, though, for Sustainability, this theory posits that it can predict the diffusion of an innovation and offer specific guidance for
8 diffusing an important innovation which is not spreading on its own and thus stimulate a Sustainability transition. Diffusion theory is based on the idea that technologies and ideas are adopted over time in a manner which forms an s-shaped curve of cumulative adopters. Initially, an innovation is adopted slowly and the slope of the curve is small. A successful innovation eventually achieves a “critical mass” of adopters, at which point the rate of adoption takes off, only slowing down as there are fewer and fewer non-adopters left. This concept of critical mass has been popularized by Malcolm Gladwell (2002) as the “Tipping Point.” Reaching critical mass is crucial according to diffusion theory. Beforehand, the diffusion of an innovation is slow and may require outside support and promotion, but once the critical mass has been reached, the rate of adoption becomes rapid and self-sustaining. Rogers (2003) suggests that this critical mass will be reached at cumulative adoption rates of between 5% and 20% (p. 360). But Roland Bunch (1982) notes that villagers generally try to maintain a consensus within their community and that individuals will abandon an innovation even if it is successful for them individually if the innovation is not widespread within the community (p. 85). Therefore Bunch suggests that in this context a critical mass of 25-45% is needed.
9
Figure 2 Theoretical illustration of the s-shaped cumulative adoption curve (marking the critical mass at around 16%) with the adopter categories Source: (Tanahashi, 2008)
Diffusion theory argues that people can be grouped into adoption categories which predict how long it will take them to adopt an innovation. These categories are based on the innovativeness of individuals; “the degree to which an individual is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than other members of a system (Rogers, 2003, p. 267).” A person‟s innovativeness is believed to be determined by a wide array of factors, but is consistent enough that an individual would fall in the same adoption category for a wide array of different innovations. As can be seen in figure 2 above, there are five categories: innovators, opinion leaders, early majority, late majority and laggards. The
10 key factors which are believed to determine what category an individual falls into are socioeconomic situation, personality characteristics and communication behavior. From first hearing about a new innovation, to deciding whether or not to adopt it, an individual passes through what Rogers (2003) terms the innovation-decision process. This process is further broken down into five stages: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. The yes or no decision of adoption does not itself provide much information which could improve the effectiveness of diffusion efforts. Thus, by utilizing this innovation-decision process model one can parse out more information about the adoption decision which may be useful for increasing uptake. One of the principal goals of diffusion research is to understand the variables which determine the rate of adoption of an innovation. This includes characteristics of the innovation itself as well as the socio-ecological system in which the innovation is diffusing. Rogers (2003) divides the variables which determine the rate of adoption into categories: perceived attributes of innovations, type of innovation-decision, communication channels, the nature of the social system and the efforts of the change agent (figure 3). These variables offer important insight into developing and diffusing innovations which could replace open fires in rural cooking regimes. Improving these innovations to the greatest extent possible will prove especially important, because as Rogers points out, preventative innovations (such as clean stoves) have a much slower rate of adoption (2003, p. 234). The principal gain from abandoning open fires for households is long term improved health benefits. Unfortunately, this huge benefit will
11 be under-valued because it accrues so long in the future, and therefore will not speed the rate of adoption of alternative technologies as much as one could hope.
Figure 3 Rogers (2003) adoption rate determining variables (p. 222)
2.4 Livelihood Perspective The adoption of a new cooking technology, while important, is just one component of the whole cooking socio-technical system. How new cooking innovations integrate with or change the existing socio-technical system depends in a large sense on the complex dynamics of rural households. The livelihood perspective is one of the best ways for outsiders to understand the behaviors of local households (Scoones, 2009, p. 2). This framework incorporates the vulnerability context, household assets, the institution and policy environment and the outcomes which emerge from various strategies. One of
12 the foundational principals of this approach is that rural household activities can‟t be isolated into sectors such as “farming” or “small-scale enterprises.” Instead households have a complex portfolio of activities, which are tightly related and must be viewed as a system. A livelihoods approach also emphasizes the importance of context. The surrounding physical environment and human institutions and policies have a heavy influence on the choices made within households. While constrained by these outside forces (the context), households seek to maximize the livelihood outcomes (income, increased well-being, etc.) and reduce their vulnerability to shocks. To do this households utilize their existing assets by employing a combination of strategies. How households utilize an asset such as a new cooking technology will have a big effect on the technology‟s positive impact. The livelihood perspective will help to elucidate how and why households adopt cooking innovations in specific but varying ways, and how these adoption strategies affect the outcomes of the new socio-technical cooking systems.
13 3. RESEARCH METHODS 3.1 Description of Methods I first became aware of the problems associated with the cooking systems of the rural developing world as a Peace Corps volunteer. From 2005-2007 I lived and worked in the small village of La Comunidad, El Salvador. One of the principal projects which I was a part of was the installation of improved, wood burning cookstoves in various households in the village. This stimulated my interest in better understanding the nature of the problem with the current cooking system, and how new solutions could be implemented. Beginning my graduate work immediately upon my return to the United States, this question continued to intrigue me, so I decided to take it up for my Master‟s thesis. I combed the academic literature for papers on rural cooking systems and improved cookstoves. The recent realization of the scale of the serious health consequences of cooking with open fires has lead to a surge in research over the last decade. A lot of work is being done, in particular, to evaluate whether improved, biomass-burning cookstoves are a potential solution. This is mostly focused on trying to measure the impacts, on health or production of greenhouse gases for example. To fill a gap in the research and take advantage of my experience as a Peace Corps volunteer, my fieldwork focused on an in depth look at households, in order to understand why and how they adopt and use new cooking technologies. I spent two months during the summer of 2009 completing my fieldwork in El Salvador (see figure 4 for map). I interviewed 27 households, 19 of which were using
14 improved cookstoves, 4 who had signed up to buy one and 4 who had decided not to get one (this was a non-random sample). I did semi-structured interviews in Spanish, which generally lasted 45 minutes to 1 hour. Czaja and Blair‟s work Designing Surveys (2005) guided my efforts in preparing for the interviews. A mix of closed-answer questions to gather comparable data, and open-ended questions to elicit qualitative information were included. General themes and specific questions were taken from other improved cookstove studies and diffusion theory (Appendix I and II). In order to make sure the questions matched the local context, I interviewed 4 key informants who helped me to finalize the structure and language of the interviews. The interviews were recorded and notes taken as a back-up. The interviews were conducted in the participants‟ houses, enabling me to observe their cooking systems. In addition to working with the actual households, the relevant members of the sponsoring NGO were interviewed, and their operations and methods investigated. Over the course of several months I translated all the interviews and entered the quantitative responses into a database. Since this was not a statistical sample, only simple comparisons such as averages could be done. The open-ended responses were transcribed and common themes were counted. There is an increasing awareness of the value of using various methods and ways of knowing in research to provide a more complete understanding of a subject (Creswell, 2009). This is particularly important in Sustainability and is the approach taken here.
15
Figure 4 Satellite image of La Comunidad and its location in El Salvador
3.2 Rural Focused Research It must be emphasized that this research focuses on cooking systems strictly in a rural context. Urbanization has a huge effect on the cooking systems of households and past researchers have too often attempted to apply their findings in urban areas to the countryside (Hiemstra-van der Horst & Hovorka, 2008, p. 3334). The difference is evident in the aggregate statistics from developing countries, 83% of rural residents rely on biomass burning compared to 23% of urban residents (International Energy Agency,
16 2006, p. 422). Although technically biomass, most of these biomass-burning urban dwellers actually use charcoal (Schlag & Zuzarte, 2008, p. 4), very different from the locally gathered biomass, whose use is dominant among rural residents. While there may be some parallels and cross comparisons which can be made, it is not evident that these would be very useful for resolving the rural cooking system Sustainability problem. Therefore, this paper will only outline the context and nature of the problem in rural areas and seek transition strategies that are similarly tailored to the countryside.
17 4. DEFINING THE PROBLEM AND ENVISIONING A SUSTAINABLE COOKING SYSTEM
As outlined by transition management theory earlier described, the first step to tackling a Sustainability issue is to study and define the problem. An in-depth problem definition includes perspectives of various stakeholders and separates the aspects of the problem across spatial and temporal scales. A comprehensive problem definition is essential for envisioning a Sustainable future for a particular issue. The criteria for the Sustainable Vision are based upon resolving the myriad aspects of the problem. This section will seek to lay out the problems created by the current cooking system, utilizing a wide array of sources in the literature and my own fieldwork in El Salvador. This will inform the creation of criteria which together form a Vision of a Sustainable cooking system.
4.1 Health The most clear-cut problem with the current cooking system, centered on the open burning of biomass, is the large negative health impacts. Awareness of the scale of this problem has only recently spread beyond the small group of researchers who first began studying this issue in the 1980s and 1990s (Ezzati & Kammen, 2002). The turning point was reached in 2002, when the World Health Organization declared indoor air pollution from the burning of solid fuels for cooking to be one of the top ten global health risks (Rehfuess, 2006, p. 12). As can be seen in figure 5 this study attributes over 4% of
18 deaths in developing countries, or about 2 million mostly women and children annually, to smoke from cooking fires (World Health Organization, 2009, p. 11). This puts it on par with other well-known major health risks for these populations. Unfortunately, the rural data cannot be parsed out, but considering that 85% of people cooking with open fires live in rural areas the percentage of deaths caused by cooking smoke in the countryside of developing countries is likely at least 50% higher than the reported 4% number. (See Appendix IV for calculations)
Percentage of Deaths by Cause in Developing Countries
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
Figure 5 Causes of death combined from several WHO sources
19
Wood does not generally contain toxic materials and could theoretically be fully burned to yield only carbon dioxide and water, but combustion in open fires and traditional stoves is far from complete, creating particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide (CO) (Smith K. R., Wood: The Fuel the Warms You Thrice, 2008). These are produced in such great quantities that cooking areas have been found to have pollution concentrations hundreds of times higher than accepted health levels (Ezzati & Kammen, 2002) (Duflo, Greenstone, & Hanna, 2008). Efforts by the WHO and other researchers (Rehfuess, 2006)(Dherani, Pope, Mascarenhas, Smith, Weber, & Bruce, 2008)(Smith K. R., Wood: The Fuel the Warms You Thrice, 2008) to survey the existing literature, have found strong evidence that cooking smoke causes lower respiratory disease such as pneumonia in children, and upper respiratory infections such as bronchitis and emphysema in adults (these form the basis of the WHO estimate for total cause of death from cook smoke). In addition there is insufficient but compelling evidence that cook smoke may also contribute to lung cancer, asthma, cataracts and tuberculosis. Unfortunately, most of these studies are purely observational, and controlled studies to confirm the causal link are still in the early stages in Guatemala, India and elsewhere (Diaz, Bruce, Pope, Diaz, Smith, & Smith-Sivertsen, 2008) (Duflo, Greenstone, & Hanna, 2008). Determining the extent of the damage to an individual‟s health caused by cooking smoke, is further complicated due to a poor understanding of exposure (Ezzati & Kammen, 2002). The amount of time the cook or her children spend in the kitchen can
20 be highly variable between regions and even households. This points to the fact that large health improvements could theoretically be achieved by modifying behaviors to reduce exposure. One study suggests that households already do this by having the already old and sick do more of the cooking (Pitt, Rosenzweig, & Hassan, 2006). Other work has pointed out the significance of the materials of or ventilation within the kitchen in reducing exposure to pollutants (Dasgupta, Huq, Khaliquzzaman, & Wheeler, 2007). While modifying behavior or a building‟s structure might reduce the health consequences of the current cooking systems, reducing or eliminating the production of the harmful pollutants would be a far more effective method.
Health Criteria: A Sustainable cooking system will not contribute to indoor air pollution levels above safe health exposure levels.
4.2 Deforestation Concern with the cooking systems of households in developing countries rose to prominence in the late 1970s and early 1980s as researchers declared an imminent “fuelwood crisis” due to the harvesting of wood for cooking. But this projection has turned out to be true almost exclusively in theory and in simulations, little empirical evidence exists linking fuelwood harvesting to deforestation (Cooke, Kohlin, & Hyde, 2008, p. 114). The preponderance of evidence points, instead, to agricultural expansion as the primary cause of deforestation (Madubansi & Shackleton, 2007) (Arnold & Persson, 2003) (Hiemstra-van der Horst & Hovorka, 2008). Charcoal production for
21 cities (particularly in Africa) may be contributing to local deforestation in some places but the causal evidence is far from clear. The weight of evidence for rural cooking systems is that the use of biomass as a cooking fuel does not meaningfully contribute to deforestation. Researchers studying rural households have found that fuelwood is not clear-cut from forests, but generally is collected already fallen off the ground, or pruned from trees, principally along roadways or fields (Heltberg, Arndt, & Sekhar, 2000). Interviewees in La Comunidad agreed with this, describing fuelwood as being collected when fallow land is cleared for planting, when fruit trees die or stop producing, and when pruning fruit and other trees on one‟s own land. While a chopped-down tree‟s wood may be used for fuelwood, the principal motivation for cutting the tree down is not cooking fuel. Unfortunately, the perception that the cooking habits of the poor households of the developing world, is a leading cause of deforestation is still prevalent. It is often cited in passing by researchers (Edwards & Langpap, 2005) and is the main stated motivation of many NGOs and other development projects. That being said there are many arid or otherwise fragile regions for which fuelwood harvesting may be very destructive, and due to other pressures these regions are likely to increase greatly in the future.
At this time it appears that in most cases concern about deforestation does not need to be a criteria of the Vision of a Sustainable cooking system.
22
Figure 6 A living fence in La Comunidad which is pruned regularly for fuelwood
4.3 Climate Change Mitigation “Soot from third-world stoves new target in climate fight” declared a recent New York Times headline (Rosenthal, 2009). The actual impact of current cooking systems on global climate change is not quite as clear as the headlines in the press would suggest. First, because it appears that the vast majority of biomass used for cooking in rural households is harvested renewably (as discussed above), its combustion produces no net carbon emissions. But the same inefficient combustion that causes the health dangers already discussed also produces other potent greenhouse gases such as methane. While the emissions of methane and other gases are not insignificant, what has really excited interest in cooking is black carbon emissions, which may be the largest contributor to climate change after carbon dioxide. Cooking with biomass has been estimated to contribute 18% of global black carbon emissions (Bond, October 13, 2009). Because black carbon only stays in the atmosphere for a couple of days, any reduction in
23 emissions would have an immediate ameliorating effect on the climate (Bond, Venkataraman, & Masera, 2004). Unfortunately, a huge amount of uncertainty exists at all stages. There is a large variance in estimating the actual warming potential of black carbon (Rai & Victor, 2009, p. 15), which varies further depending on the source (a cooking fire vs. a diesel engine). The contribution of cooking to global black carbon emissions is largely guess work, and a wide range of estimates exist. Efforts have been made to measure the individual contribution of one household‟s cooking both in the lab (Bond, Venkataraman, & Masera, 2004) (MacCarty, Ogle, Still, Bond, & Roden, 2008) and in the field (Johnson, Edwards, Ghilardi, Berrueta, Frenk, & Masera, 2009) (Roden, Bond, Conway, Pinel, MacCarty, & Still, 2009) but Bond and colleagues (2004) note that estimating the impact of cooking with biomass on climate change may still be off by a factor of 2 or more. Modern cooking fuels themselves are hardly climate-neutral, residential cooking in the US is responsible for the emission of over 30 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually (Energy Information Agency, 2010, p. 37).
Climate Change Mitigation Criteria: Any future vision for Sustainability must target climate neutrality, but it is still unclear what the impact on the climate of the traditional biomass-burning cooking system is compared to the alternatives. Therefore, while the goal is to minimize the contribution of cooking to greenhouse gas emissions, without being able to scale the problem or accurately quantify the difference between cooking options, it may be impossible to set a criteria for the Sustainable Vision.
24 4.4 Direct Financial Impact on Rural Households Rural households in developing countries are typically very cash-poor, and thus seek to avoid any expenditure requiring cash. One of the principal advantages of the traditional cooking system is that it is extremely low cost, both in terms of initial capital expenditures and ongoing fuel costs (Masera & Saatkamp, 2000, p. 2088). Fuel is so cheap because most of the needed biomass can be collected for free. A survey in Bangladesh found that only 13% of households relied entirely on purchasing their fuelwood supply (Miah, Al Rashid, & Yong Shin, 2009, p. 75) while another in a rural region of India calculated that only 4% of fuelwood used for cooking was purchased (Heltberg, Arndt, & Sekhar, 2000, p. 220). In La Comunidad, all 27 families interviewed collected their own firewood, with 5 of the houses supplementing their supply with purchases depending on yearly needs. Because it can be collected so easily fuelwood often does not really have much inherent, monetary value (the value is instead in the labor of processing and transporting it). When asked about selling fuelwood one La Comunidad farmer responded, “The people want it cheaper. But you have to do so much; chop it, move it, prepare it and so on that I feel like it is hardly worth the work.” Using modern fuels on the other hand has a large start-up cost (Edwards & Langpap, 2005), as well as significant ongoing fuel costs, which in the current international market are highly unstable (International Energy Agency, 2006), all of which must be paid for completely with scarce cash. Generally speaking, the direct financial cost of the traditional system both in terms of start-up capital and ongoing expenditure is very low and difficult to compete with.
25 Financial Criteria: A Sustainable cooking system will not require large cash outlays (in comparison to what the household may generate).
4.5 Non-Financial Economic Impact on Rural Households 4.5a Household Model The choice of households to cook with biomass doesn‟t fit well into a purely market-based model. This is unsurprising considering the conclusions of researchers of the Green Revolution, “the economic environment of rural households in developing countries is often characterized by imperfect or missing markets, resulting in nonseperability of the household production and consumption decisions (Feder & Umali, 1993, p. 219).” This emphasized the importance of investigating the production and consumption of fuelwood by households simultaneously, as I did in El Salvador. Studies have demonstrated that demand for fuelwood is price inelastic- sharp increases in the “market” price of fuelwood only causing a mild decrease in use (Cooke, Kohlin, & Hyde, 2008, p. 116). Since a large proportion of households collect their own fuelwood, researchers have begun trying to uncover the „shadow‟ price of fuelwood by looking at the opportunity costs to the household of its collection and preparation (Cooke, Kohlin, & Hyde, 2008, p. 105). Unfortunately this „shadow‟ price is “unobserved and unknown, except to the household itself, and which varies between households depending on household and village characteristics (Heltberg, Arndt, & Sekhar, 2000, p. 215).” While precisely calculating the shadow price may be impossible, understanding the non-
26 financial costs to households which contribute to their shadow price for fuelwood will shed light on what a Sustainable cooking system should look like.
4.5b Non-Financial Costs to Rural Households There is a wide range of aspects of non-financial costs to using biomass as a cooking fuel that must be examined. First, biomass burned for cooking cannot provide environmental services such as fertilizer (mostly in the case of crop residues), erosion control, etc. There is evidence, though, that households work hard to avoid having fuel collection affect their agricultural output (Cooke, Kohlin, & Hyde, 2008, p. 107) and in general the actual cost in terms of lost environmental services is still highly uncertain (Hutton, Rehfuess, Tediosi, & Weiss, 2006, p. 22). It is time savings that most modeling, such as that done by the World Health Organization (WHO) (Hutton, Rehfuess, Tediosi, & Weiss, 2006), identifies as by far the biggest non-financial cost of traditional cooking systems. This is because cooking time is assumed to be reduced (an assumption based principally on laboratory tests), while the hours of time spent collecting wood is assumed to be eliminated (and replaced with a productivity activity). The WHO and other models consistently show very high benefit to cost ratios for replacing the traditional cooking system. But the large calculated benefits of replacing the traditional system with modern fuels come almost exclusively from „time savings‟, which accounts for up to 80% of the benefits in some of the models (Hutton, Rehfuess, Tediosi, & Weiss, 2006, p. 89). Rural households do not appear to actually view these „time savings‟ as a net benefit compared
27 to the costs of modern fuels in part due to the nonseperability of the production and consumption of fuelwood and its tight integration into the rural livelihood system. In contrast to the modeling of researchers, “women (who cook with biomass) seldom list fuelwood shortage (and thus the increased time and labor required to collect it) as being high among their concerns (Arnold & Persson, 2003, p. 381).” Harvesting of biomass for fuel has co-evolved with the other livelihood strategies utilized by rural households. Fuelwood collection is probably almost always a joint-activity; doubling in some cases as child care (Cooke, Kohlin, & Hyde, 2008, p. 112) or a social activity for women (Dhoble & Bairiganjan, 2009, p. 13). In La Comunidad fuelwood is principally produced as a byproduct of agricultural activities. Households identified the clearing of fallow land for crops, pruning fruit trees and replacing of unproductive or dead trees as their principal sources for fuelwood. In all these activities the principal objective is to increase agricultural productivity and fuelwood is produced regardless of whether it is utilized. In fact one interviewee was so unconcerned about a fuelwood shortage that after clearing land, which produced a bunch of fuelwood, he decided it wasn‟t worth it to carry it to the house, “because it is really far, better to let it rot and fertilize the soil.” There is particular concern among practitioners and researchers in this field about how the burden of labor for fuelwood collection falls principally upon women, but this task is often shared by both sexes (Cooke, Kohlin, & Hyde, 2008, pp. 112-113). In La Comunidad men do the majority of this work, bringing home most of the fuelwood as a byproduct of their agricultural activities. This work is typically done in the last few months of the dry season as land is prepared for crops, at which time there is more time
28 than during the growing season, and the fuelwood can be stored somewhere dry for the rainy season. None of these points are meant to trivialize the labor that goes into producing fuelwood for cooking, it is very hard work and is definitely costly to households. In fact 48% of the households interviewed in La Comunidad have decided that it is worth the money to pay for the bus or a pick-up to bring the fuelwood from the fields to their house, rather than spend the labor and time carrying it on their backs. While fuelwood collection may not be significantly contributing to deforestation, deforestation occurring due to other causes increases the opportunity cost of collecting fuelwood. Agricultural expansion and intensification in particular reduce biomass resources, as fallow times are decreased (less woody re-growth to harvest) and small, forested plots or property borders are cleared for planting. But fuelwood demand could in some cases actually slow or reverse this process, as evidence from India suggests that fuelwood demand has lead to increased forest cover in some places (Cooke, Kohlin, & Hyde, 2008, p. 115). Need for fuelwood also encourages farmers to plant trees along fences (figure 6) or in hedgerows whence they can additionally provide environmental services such as erosion and wind control. Overall, rural households do not appear to be judging the non-financial costs of biomass harvesting are probably to be as high as modeling has predicted or earlier researchers assumed. Regardless of the current cost, as incomes rise, so does the total opportunity cost of cooking with biomass and this should be leading households to abandon biomass as they grow wealthier (if the only motivation for utilizing it was the ability to harvest it one‟s self) (Kanagawa & Nakata, 2007, p. 326). But this is not
29 happening in the rural developing world. Hiemstra-van der Horst and Hovorka (2008) pointed out that the literature from Sub-Saharan Africa shows that “fuelwood can be an important energy source for households at all levels of wealth (p. 3336).” A crosscountry comparison of census data found high levels of fuelwood consumption across income levels in rural areas of Brazil, Nicaragua, Guatemala, India, Nepal and Vietnam (Heltberg, 2003) as did a separate household survey in China did as well (Wuyuan, Zerriffi, & Jihua, 2008). While the importance of biomass may decline with wealth (overall fuel use goes up), the quantity and the consequences of its use may not be declining in turn.
Figure 7 Graphs of census data from Guatemala and India which show that fuelwood use does not decline much in the higher income brackets (to the right) Source: (Heltberg, 2003, p. 28)
This data implies that the non-financial costs for the household of using fuelwood (its shadow price) are in fact quite low and only increases slowly as incomes rise. But the persistence of fuelwood cannot be fully explained by low financial and non-financial costs. Even when fuelwood is exclusively purchased and is more expensive then modern fuels, it is still utilized by many households for at least some of their cooking (Heltberg, 2005, p. 352). “The implication is that in rural areas economic development and income
30 growth will not in itself lead to displacement of dirty cooking fuels (Heltberg, 2003, p. 5).” There must, therefore, be benefits to using traditional cooking methods and this must be incorporated into the Vision of Sustainable cooking.
Non-Financial Criteria: The non-financial costs to a rural household of fuelwood harvesting is highly contextual depending on the regional and even household situation but may not be considered significant by the household. At the very least a Sustainable cooking system should have options so that households with high “shadow prices” for fuelwood can reduce their non-financial costs, but a focus on reducing non-financial costs should not be a high priority if it comes at the expense of increasing direct financial costs.
4.6 The Cooking Experience As early as the 1980s, researchers and practitioners realized that the reasons for the persistence of open fires went beyond the technical or strictly economic (Agarwal, 1983) (Manibog, 1984). More recently, household surveys have begun to uncover some of the socio-cultural motivations behind fuel choices. Based on this research as well as my own, I have identified five factors which will be essential components of the cooking experience criteria of the Sustainable cooking system.
4.6a Cooking Local Foods Early on, designers of biomass stoves and other practitioners grasped that open fires are excellent at cooking the local cuisine, which is central to why the traditional
31 system is so hard to dislodge. As with fuelwood harvesting, local diets, subsistence crops and open-fire cooking have all co-evolved to operate in concert. In El Salvador the principal subsistence staples, corn and beans, require long, slow cooking, which can be easily done by leaving a couple logs to slowly burn while the cook goes about other tasks, returning only occasionally to check and give the pot a stir. Even though 89% of the households interviewed in La Comunidad had gas stoves, not a single one used this “modern” fuel to prepare beans or corn for tortillas, or to make the tortillas themselves (the staple traditional foods). Studies in India, Guatemala, Mexico and elsewhere have also shown households to have a clear preference for using fuelwood to cook traditional, local foods (Dhoble & Bairiganjan, 2009) (Heltberg, 2005) (Troncoso, Castillo, Masera, & Merino, 2007). On the other hand, modern appliances do an excellent job of cooking food from a supermarket (think stove-top rice).
4.6b Comfort “After lighting the fire, I run from the kitchen to get away from the smoke,” said one of the women in La Comunidad, who none the less relies on open fires to prepare all her food. Another noted how her daughter cried from the smoke while helping to make tortillas. The large quantities of smoke and heat produced by open fires is very uncomfortable, and women surveyed have consistently noted comfort as one of the major advantages of improved cooking technologies (Troncoso, Castillo, Masera, & Merino, 2007) (Diaz, Bruce, Pope, Diaz, Smith, & Smith-Sivertsen, 2008). But most users of traditional cooking systems seem to have accustomed themselves to the discomfort
32 (Dhoble & Bairiganjan, 2009, p. 18). Seven out of the nineteen users of the improved cookstoves in La Comunidad noted the „reduced discomfort from heat‟ as one of its prime advantages. Traditions are themselves comfortable, as one woman noted, “everyday I make tortillas, in the same form, always the same traditions.” For most cooks in the developing world “the act of cooking on a traditional cookstove came to them as easily as doing any other household chores. They thought it was mainly a matter of habit that made it easy (Dhoble & Bairiganjan, 2009, p. 13).” But beyond habits, the versatility and flexibility of open fires make them the most convenient option for rural households (Troncoso, Castillo, Masera, & Merino, 2007, p. 2804). This versatility was regularly cited by interviewees as a principal advantage of open fires; whether it be because of the ability to cook with clay pots, to prepare big batches of tamales, to grill meat, or to make the perfect batch of tortillas.
4.6c Cleanliness Beyond the health impacts and discomfort, the smoke produced by burning biomass gets everything dirty. “The users were more pleased regarding the reduced blackening of the walls due to reduced soot from the smoke than with regard to the improved air quality (Dhoble & Bairiganjan, 2009, p. 24).” In Mexico women complained about the dirtiness of smoke as often as they did of its health-related consequences (Troncoso, Castillo, Masera, & Merino, 2007, p. 2804), while in Guatemala, cleanliness of the kitchen, clothes and pots were major concerns (Diaz, Bruce, Pope, Diaz, Smith, & Smith-Sivertsen, 2008, p. 6). The difficulty, or even
33 impossibility, of keeping clean when cooking with an open fire was one of the key themes identified by the qualitative analysis of the La Comunidad interviews. One of the women who uses the improved cookstove exclaimed, “when one goes into a kitchen of someone who doesn‟t have a (improved) stove, the pots, their hands, everything, is covered with soot, it blackens one!”
4.6d Saving Time As discussed about fuelwood harvesting, calculating how much time a specific new cooking technology actually saves is very difficult but is important to households. Cooking with fire generally enables multi-tasking (saving time), while a gas or electric stove has to be tended constantly to assure that it doesn‟t burn the food or use up the whole gas tank, but these modern fuels also cook food much faster. Troncoso and colleagues (2007) found that ¾ of women used LPG (gas) to cook certain items because it is much faster (p. 2804). Households in La Comunidad agreed, with 81% stating that a main advantage of gas was its speed. Additionally, many households like the improved cookstoves because by cooking many things at once (11 out of 19 users), time spent cooking was reduced. Some also noted though that the speed in which an open fire can be started and cook a pot of food to be an advantage of the traditional cooking system (11 of 27). Time was in fact the fourth most commonly mentioned theme during the interviews.
4.6e Values
34 In development it has commonly been assumed that everything modern is better. This idea persists in views about cooking fuel where it is assumed that the preference for modern, cleaner fuels is universal and the only constraint on adoption is income (Hiemstra-van der Horst & Hovorka, 2008). While LPG can be viewed as more modern, households may still desire to also hold onto traditional spaces by maintaining a cooking area for open fires (Masera & Saatkamp, 2000, p. 2095). Thus, the traditional cooking system likely plays a role in cultural identity and preservation. Rogers (2003, p. 231) noted that status is particularly important for adopters of early technologies, and 1/3 of women in Guatemala rated status as an advantage of using the new, improved cookstoves (Diaz, Bruce, Pope, Diaz, Smith, & Smith-Sivertsen, 2008, p. 6). There are strong perceptions that the taste of food is different when cooked with open fires and the taste from open fires is generally preferred, especially for traditional foods (Dhoble & Bairiganjan, 2009) (Joona, Chandraa, & Bhattacharyab, 2009) (Troncoso, Castillo, Masera, & Merino, 2007). In La Comunidad it is widely held that, “food tastes better from fire then from gas” and many also noted that beans cooked in a clay pot (whose rounded bottom makes it almost impossible to use on any modern appliance) are superior. Untangling the values that make one technology preferred over another is very difficult but may be important if large scale campaigns are going to be launched to tackle the consequences of the traditional system.
Cooking Experience Criteria: In order to achieve a successful transition to a more Sustainable cooking system, the strategies must appeal to the key stakeholder, the actual
35 users. But beyond that, improving the lives of the key stakeholders (even if intangibly) should be a principal goal of any Sustainable transition. Therefore, the goal must be to create a cooking system which is excellent at preparing local foods but also to the greatest extent possible, comfortable to use, clean, time saving and compatible with local values.
Health: Reduce/Eliminate Indoor Air Pollution
Financial Cost: Keep cash outlays for cooking very low
Opportunity Costs: Enable households to minimize
Climate Change: Reduce/Eliminate GHGs due to cooking
Cooking Experience: Make it the best possible
Figure 8 Vision of a Sustainable Cooking System with Criteria
36 4.7 Future Uncertainty This Vision has been developed based upon the known problems with the current system. In fact though the socio-technical system will shift and change over time and the Vision must evolve as well- there is no true end or optimal state. In particular the landscape that this system is embedded in will change both in time and space, with fluctuating fuel prices, increasing (or decreasing) concern about climate change, deforestation from agricultural expansion or a host of other factors. A key aspect of transition management is that all stages are an iterative process in which feedback is constantly incorporated and adjustments made. It must therefore be understood that this Vision of a Sustainable Cooking System is representative of one time and place.
37 5. STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING THE SUSTAINABLE COOKING VISION Transition management theory recognizes that one doesn‟t move straight from understanding the problem to solving it. Instead, numerous strategies (niches) must be tried, learned from and improved upon and tried over again until a shift to a more Sustainable system state is made. Currently, there are several different strategies for shifting away from the traditional rural cooking system which are being tried, but none have yet achieved a Sustainable cooking system (as described in the Vision). Even if each strategy that is developed, does not attain all the criteria of the Sustainable Vision, the strategies should at least follow some of the basic trade-off rules outlined by Gibson (2006): maximize net gains, avoid significant adverse effects, protect the future, and any trade offs (between the different criteria of the vision) must be justified. These rules may seem to overly constrain potential strategies, but strategies can have re-enforcing gains which meet several of the goals at the same time. For example, more efficiently burning biomass fuel reduces the amount of unhealthy particles households are exposed to, cuts greenhouse gases, and decreases the labor and time needed to collect fuel as well. The rest of this section will briefly examine how well the most common strategies do in meeting the Vision for a Sustainable cooking system based on evidence in the literature and my fieldwork in El Salvador.
5.1 Strategy: Modern Fuels There are basically two „modern‟ options to replace the traditional cooking system; LPG (which is liquefied petroleum sold in tanks, referred to locally as „gas‟) and
38 electricity. In developed countries and urban areas of many developing countries, the switch to these cooking technologies (and piped natural gas) has been nearly 100% because they possess numerous advantages. Both LPG and electricity eliminate the negative health consequences from indoor air pollution, as well as all the time and labor which harvesting biomass fuel necessitates. Access to modern services in rural areas is often the key problem preventing residents from modernizing, but this does not appear to be a major barrier for cooking fuels in many places. In La Comunidad every household interviewed (27) had electricity but it was not used for cooking by a single one. This is typical in the developing world where electricity is hardly ever used for cooking even when accessible (Heltberg, 2004, p. 873). This suggests that electricity-as-a-cooking-fuel will not be an effective strategy in the near term. LPG is also widely available but using LPG has high start-up costs (purchasing the stove), and necessitates continuous expenditure of a high proportion of households‟ scarce cash resources. “Those who can get an (LPG) stove do, but others can‟t, when I can buy gas I do, when I can‟t, I can‟t,” matter of factly explained one woman in La Comunidad. Yet the cost of LPG is likely to keep increasing, especially as some countries such as Brazil phase out subsidies (International Energy Agency, 2006, p. 441). To make matters worse the international price of LPG is highly unstable, wrecking havoc on slim household budgets. In countries such as El Salvador, which regulate the market by subsidizing and fixing prices, supply often dries up entirely during periods of high global prices. Asked one woman in La Comunidad, “what happens when there isn‟t any gas? My poor kids in San Salvador (the capital city) what can they cook with when there isn‟t any gas?” Vulnerability is key
39 feature of the Livelihoods approach because a central strategy of poor households is to reduce vulnerability to outside forces such as LPG price shocks or shortages. Unfortunately, even reducing the price of the stoves and the fuel won‟t drive a transition. Surveys and modeling efforts have shown that lowering prices through subsidies only marginally decreases the use of biomass (Edwards & Langpap, 2005). Further, as previously discussed, rising incomes in rural areas do not typically lead to the abandonment of biomass as a cooking fuel and the full switch to LPG. The general need for Sustainable thinking and action has principally arisen due to „modernization‟, which has brought large increases in human welfare, while also creating huge, system-level negative impacts. This is certainly true of the modernization of cooking technology as well. While using electricity for cooking has huge benefits for household health (by eliminating indoor air pollution), it is not very efficient, and it may cause serious regional or global harm depending on how that electricity is being generated hundreds of miles from the household. Cooking with LPG directly converts fossil fuel into greenhouse gases not to mention all the emissions and other impacts of transporting it around the globe and into the countryside on tankers and trucks. The IEA and other groups have pointed out that this may be a worthwhile trade-off, projecting that getting 1.3 billion more people cooking with LPG would only increase oil demand by 1% (International Energy Agency, 2006, p. 437); but this is certainly a trade-off that must be thought about. The principal way in which the challenge of unsustainable cooking systems has been addressed in the developing world, is through the subsidization of LPG (despite the fact that modeling suggests that subsidies hardly increase demand (less than
40 1%) (Edwards & Langpap, 2005)). The fiscal cost of these subsidies to governments can be quite large and very difficult to reduce, with entrenched interests and the middle class, who are the principal beneficiaries, lobbying to prevent any change. For example, even before the recent fuel spikes the government of El Salvador spent over $80 million on LPG subsidies in 2006 (Ministero de Economia, 2007, p. 19) This growing cost has forced the government to recently announce that it was planning to cut back the subsidy by targeting it better for just the poor (Subsidio Focalizado al Gas Propano Iniciaría en Octubre, 2010). LPG and/or electricity may be the long-term fuel of choice for cooking, but these strategies have so far not lead to transition to a Sustainable cooking system in the rural developing world and are not projected to do so in the near term.
5.2 Strategy: Improved Biomass Cookstove Since the inception of the „fuelwood crisis‟ in the 1970‟s the popularity of Improved Cookstoves (ICSs) in development circles has waxed and waned several times. In principal this strategy is fairly simple; burn the biomass more efficiently, direct more of the heat to the food and/or vent the smoke with a chimney and in theory achieve all aspects of the previously described Vision of a Sustainable cooking system. The principal advantage of this strategy is that by not substantially disrupting the existing socio-technical regime surrounding traditional cooking with biomass, transitioning to ICSs should be much easier. Cash expenditures on modern fuels are not needed, while improved efficiency would reduce the non-financial costs associated with biomass harvesting. This basic idea has in practice actually proved to be technically very complex
41 and difficult to achieve, which flummoxed western engineers and project managers. It is only in the last decade and a half that strong designs have really begun to be developed (Kammen, 1995) (Bilger, 2009). Studies have shown that ICS designs are reducing the production of unhealthy pollutants (Duflo, Greenstone, & Hanna, 2008), but the exposure may still be far above healthy levels- for example a study in Honduras found that households using ICSs had a 73% reduction in particulate matter but estimated exposures to still be three times the recommendations of the World Health Organization (Clark M. L., 2007, p. 209). Early results from a randomized introduction of ICSs in Guatemala suggests that the health gains are significant (Diaz, Bruce, Pope, Diaz, Smith, & SmithSivertsen, 2008), and a larger one ongoing in India should help to clarify the scale of health improvement that the introduction of ICSs offers (Duflo, Greenstone, & Hanna, 2008). Beyond ameliorating the health effects, efficient burning of biomass should sharply reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced by cooking (MacCarty, Ogle, Still, Bond, & Roden, 2008). Unfortunately, because actual use conditions are very different from those of the laboratory, laboratory tests of cooks‟ exposure to pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and overall efficiency have often been dramatically different from that observed in the field (Kammen, 1995) (Household Energy and Health Project, 2006) (Taylor, 2009) (Roden, Bond, Conway, Pinel, MacCarty, & Still, 2009). This makes designing ICSs which meets the Vision criteria very difficult and even having an accurate assessment as to how close or far a particular strategy is from achieving it is very difficult in the early stages. The difficulty is compounded because each region needs a different stove
42 designed to meet the specific local cooking and fuel needs. This has made designing ICSs with the necessary performance characteristics difficult, and still very much a work in progress. As some of these design barriers are being overcome, there is still the question of how to spread these various ICSs to hundreds of millions of households. In line with general trends in development, donors sponsoring ICSs are strongly pushing for all dissemination to be market-based. But the full cost of building a high quality improved cookstove may range over $100, pricing it out of the reach of too many households (Bailis, Cowan, Berrueta, & Masera, 2009). Despite all the work that has been done on promoting improved cookstoves there is, as of yet, little evidence that they can be the primary element of a transition to a Sustainable rural cooking system. There have been numerous small case studies that suggest high user uptake, but in general there have been few studies of households‟ long term uptake or discontinuance (Ezzati & Kammen, 2002, p. 1065); in other words studies that examine if a transition to a new cooking system actually happened. It is important to note that the two most commonly mentioned „successful‟ ICS projects in China and in India, which claim to have 215 and 28 million ICSs in use, are not examples of a Sustainable transition. By including realistic ideas in their theoretical modeling, such as that an ICS doesn‟t have an infinite lifespan, Kishore and Ramana (2002) estimate that there can‟t be more than 15% of the official estimates of ICSs actually in use India. The reports on the ground are far worse (Krishna, 2007), with surveys finding no evidence of ICSs in use at all (Joona, Chandraa, & Bhattacharyab, 2009, p. 5). Reporting of project results based strictly on input counts, theoretical models and laboratory tests without
43 corroboration from the field has been all too common of ICS projects, and has left the field with little idea of how to diffuse its now vastly improved technologies, despite decades of project experiences (such as that in India). The case of China is quite different and for many reasons (particularly political ones) it offers few applicable lessons for the rest of the developing world. Most importantly for this paper, it didn‟t represent a transition. China had a long history of stove use (as opposed to open fires) and the improved stove project consisted principally of training already existing stove builders to add a couple small modifications to their designs (Stinton, et al., 2004); not comparable to the change required for ICS use to be widespread almost everywhere else. But these changes in China hardly made a difference in reaching the Vision, as indoor air pollution and fuel use are still very high in rural households (Chen, Heerink, & van den Berg, 2006, p. 415). So despite having the most successful ICS program in the world, the problems of the current cooking system discussed earlier, continue unabated across rural China.
44 6. THE CASE OF AN IMPROVED COOKSTOVE INTERVENTION IN EL SALVADOR El Salvador is the most densely populated non-island country of the Western hemisphere with 7 million people occupying this small corner of Central America. 40% of the population lives in the countryside, half of whom are considered poor (The World Bank, 2005, p. 8). Most environmental assessments of El Salvador focus on the fact that with only ¼ of 1% of primary forest remaining (MARN, 2000, p. 96) El Salvador is one of the most deforested countries in the world, but others have pointed out that in reality complex agroforestry systems cover about ½ of El Salvador (Hecht, Kandel, Gomes, Cuellar, & Rosa, 2006, p. 310). According to a national census completed in 2007, over 2/3 of rural households rely principally on fuelwood for cooking (Ministerio de Economia, 2007) (unfortunately respondents were not given the option of choosing multiple fuels, so the percent that use fuelwood to some extent is probably much higher). Beginning in 2001, a US-based NGO, Trees, Water and People (TWP) began to develop an improved, wood-burning cookstove project in eastern El Salvador. The ICS design utilized in El Salvador was created by a collaborative and iterative process. The central part of the design, known as a „rocket‟, is an efficient combustion chamber developed by the Aprovecho research center in Oregon, and believed to be in use by over half of a million households around the world (MacCarty, Ogle, Still, Bond, & Roden, 2008, p. 7). In the late 1990s TWP worked with Aprovecho experts and women in Honduras to combine the rocket combustion with a „plancha’ design that was known to cook local foods well, even if it had not proven very effective otherwise (Granderson,
45 Sandhu, Vasquez, Ramirez, & Smith, 2009). The result was called the „Justa’ after the Honduran woman who played a key role in its development. This stove design was introduced to El Salvador where it was further refined by TWP with input from local women. The Justa is a large stove, measuring over a meter in length and must be built on a solid platform. The cooking is done on a metal skillet while a chimney vents the smoke from the kitchen. TWP claims that this stove will remove 80% of toxic smoke from the kitchen and reduce fuel use by 50% (El Salvador Program).
Figure 9 The first Justa stove built in La Comunidad continues to be heavily used over 2 years later
46 In 2007 I, as a Peace Corps Volunteer, the local community development organization known as ADESCO, and TWP worked together to bring the Justa to the village of La Comunidad. The ADESCO organized 25 families who wanted to participate, each agreeing to pay for the construction and some materials in turn receiving other materials as a donation from TWP. TWP also provided a technician who built some of the stoves and who trained two local men to build the rest of the stoves. Most were built between July and September 2007 but 3 participating households never got theirs built and 3 others were not in active use (e.g. original user had died). Therefore, in my fieldwork, done 2 years after the ICSs had been built, I interviewed all 19 households that were actively using the Justa ICSs. In early 2009 another opportunity was presented to households in La Comunidad to build a Justa. 9 households chose to participate, but at the time of fieldwork did not yet have their stoves. I interviewed 4 of those households as well as 4 households who did not participate in either project.
47
Figure 10 Map of the Households interviewed in La Comunidad
48 Research and experiences from around the world previously discussed suggest that improved biomass cookstoves are a potential strategy for achieving the Vision of a Sustainable cooking system. One of the key aspects of managing a transition such as this is constant evaluation of different strategies in order to modify and improve upon them. One of the primary goals of the fieldwork was to evaluate and analyze the effectiveness of the ICS strategy. The rest of this paper will analyze the success of the introduction of the Justa ICS in La Comunidad, El Salvador. Diffusion theory will be utilized to provide guidance as to how efforts to implement an ICS strategy can be more successful. The second key result of the fieldwork is a clearer understanding of how new cooking technologies are incorporated into the household cooking system.
49 7. DIFFUSION OF THE JUSTA IN LA COMUNIDAD 7.1 Critical Mass The existence of an s-shaped innovation adoption curve is central to Diffusion theory. This is because according to diffusion theory, once a certain percentage of the relevant population has transitioned, the process will take on a life of its own, and exponentially speed up. Known as the „critical mass‟, this is the target of transition interventions, because once reached, the transition shouldn‟t need more external support but happen on its own. Unfortunately, almost any graph of cumulative percentage over time will form an s-shaped curve and thus adoption curves do not provide as much useful information as diffusion theory would suggest. For example, according to theory, by looking at the adoption of other similar technologies in La Comunidad we should be able to predict the „critical mass‟ needed for the Justa. The take-up of LPG by the interviewed households can be plotted and this forms an s-shaped curve from which one could guess that the critical mass for La Comunidad is 30% (figure 11). Adoption of LPG Cumulative % 100% 80% 60%
Tipping Point?
40% 20% 0%
1985
1995
2005
Figure 11 S-curve among interviewed households for adoption of LPG
50 100%
Projected Adoption of the Justa Maximum Potential Adoption
75%
50%
Tipping Point?
25%
0%
# of La Comunidad households which have adopted the Justa.
Figure 12 Theoretical projection of the cumulative adoption of Justas in La Comunidad
From this we should be able to predict whether the Justa has reached „critical mass‟ in La Comunidad (figure 12). With the second round of nine adopters, the cumulative percentage of households in La Comunidad using the Justa ICS will have climbed to over 15%. There is no evidence that the Justa is approaching „critical mass‟ and the interviews suggest that the ICS will require outside support for a long time if it is to continue to diffuse. While it does not appear that the s-curve can be used to meaningfully predict the adoption level that needs to be targeted by transition management, there are several relevant pieces of information that emerge from this. The NGO staff found that the maximum cumulative adoption of the Justa in a village is between 60% and 75%. This fits with the census finding that about 30% of rural residents are using LPG as their main fuel (Ministero de Economia, 2007), and thus would not have a lot of motivation to switch to the Justa. The rate of adoption for LPG in La Comunidad reveals that the process is very slow, as many writers such as Bunch (1982) have noticed is typical for poor, rural communities.
51
7.2 The Innovation-Decision Process 7.2a Evidence from the Literature The act of adopting a new innovation is not instantaneous, but rather a multi-stage process. Rogers (2003) describes five stages- knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation. Disseminating knowledge of ICSs is seen as a major barrier, particularly among rural communities (Bailis, Cowan, Berrueta, & Masera, 2009, p. 1699). Additionally, a lack of knowledge and concern about the negative health impacts of the smoke from cooking may greatly reduce the motivation of households to change (Edelstein, Pitchforth, Asres, Silverman, & Kulkarni, 2008). This ties in with the persuasion stage, in which an individual or group is convinced to adopt an innovation. The relevant variables which contribute most heavily at this stage will be discussed in the next section. Most people want to try a technology, or at least have someone they trust try it, before deciding to adopt it themselves (Rogers, 2003, p. 175). A study in Mexico found that 80% of women were interested in obtaining an ICS only after it had been tried by others in their community (Troncoso, Castillo, Masera, & Merino, 2007, p. 2807). The „decision‟ stage of the innovation-decision process can be complicated by several factors. Often, donor driven projects require the collective decision of a community in order to participate, and when decisions are made thus, rather than by individual actors, the overall innovation-decision process is much slower. The internal dynamics within households also play a key role, and women, who are the main beneficiaries, may not be the ones who make the household decisions (Ceceiski, 2000, p.
52 21). Troncoso and colleagues (2007) found that 70% of women asserted that they made the decision to adopt an ICS themselves (p. 2809), but their results also emphasized that men must also be included in ICS promotional efforts (p. 2804). The innovation-decision process, though, is not considered complete until the innovation is in use and the adopter has decided to continue to use it. Like many such projects, successful implementation depends a lot on the promoting agencies. Trust and past experiences play a large role in success of projects in traditional rural communities. Also there is a large debate within the ICS community about the extent of subsidies provided by the promoting agency (Bailis, Cowan, Berrueta, & Masera, 2009). While no one doubts that lower (or zero) prices will help persuade more people to adopt, some groups assert that only by paying full price will users value the ICS and thus continue to use it. The actual evidence for this is ambiguous though, and in Mexico the extent of the subsidy was not found to play any role in the discontinuance of ICSs (Troncoso, Castillo, & Merino, 2009). Discontinuance in general has plagued improved cookstove projects, made worse by the fact it is very rarely measured. A review of one donor-funded project in El Salvador during the late 1990s to build ICSs found that 60% of them were soon abandoned by the households (Fondo Ambiental de El Salvador FONAES, 2000). More recently, the record seems to be improving; in Mexico it was found that only 17% of ICSs were discontinued (Troncoso, Castillo, Masera, & Merino, 2007, p. 2805). The perceived performance of the ICS and more importantly, how well it integrates into the livelihood system of the household play a key role in whether households decide to continue using it or chose to discontinue and abandon it.
53
Knowledge Dissimination of knowledge about ICSs and health impacts of smoke needed
Persuasion Trial by trusted peers and visible reduction of smoke and wood use key
Decision Participation by men and women important while group decisions likely to be slow
Implementation Subsidies may improve persuation but not implementation, NGO trust is key
Confirmation Historically where ICS projects failed, but recent projects have had very low discontinuanace
Figure 13 Stages of the innovation-decision process with notes relevant to ICS adoption
7.2b The Innovation-Decision Process in La Comunidad The NGO, Trees, Water, and People had not previously worked near La Comunidad, and there was no knowledge of the Justa ICS among the residents. While
54 over 80% of households interviewed agreed that smoke is bad for their health, only one household made an effort before the Justa project to get the smoke out of their kitchen. “My mom got sick, in her lungs, because of all the time she spent in the kitchen cooking. She has to always take her medicine because the smoke did so much damage to her lungs. So I saw how cooking without a chimney does a lot of damage. Then when I got married, my husband made me a stove with a chimney.” The ADESCO was intrigued by the idea but not persuaded that the Justa ICS project was worth pursuing. So two representatives were sent to visit a community in which households were utilizing the Justa ICS. Their enthusiastic descriptions convinced some people, but in order for TWP to start in a new community they require at least 25 households to sign-up. Thus, the building of a model Justa by the president of the ADESCO was a key step in convincing enough households to participate. “The doubts I had about the stove, were not dispelled until I went to Felicita‟s and we saw the model. That‟s when all of us got motivated, there were no more doubts.” Convinced that the Justa could indeed cook their food, adopters noted its obvious saving of wood and reduction of smoke as the most important factors which motivated them to sign up for the project and spend the money. This project is an example of how collective decisions slow down the adoption process. While there were people who were ready to build a Justa right away, it took over 6 months to persuade 25 households to participate. This has also made it difficult for others outside this group to participate, as they‟ve had to wait over 2 years for another
55 project round. The short windows of participation are problematic as households may not have the spare cash at the exact time the project sign-up is open. Almost every household described the adoption decision process as including both the male and female heads of household. “I (woman) went to the talks about the Justa and liked it, so I told my husband that it was nice. This animated him to want to participate as well.” The inclusion of both men and women in the process facilitated the adoption of the Justa. Implementation functioned fairly well, except for three households where the Justas were never built. TWP subsidized the cost of the stove by donating $37 of materials but households still paid from $30 to $100 for labor, and other materials. Some users expressed dissatisfaction about how much it ended up costing them (this was particularly true when a base had to be built which could cost as much as $70); unclear pricing was a problem with the implementation. Not a single household which had a Justa discontinued using it because of disenchantment. This shows that the Justa integrates well with the livelihoods of rural residents in El Salvador (the next section will focus on this in more detail). Unsurprisingly, the innovation-decision process moved slowly in La Comunidad. Poor, rural households tend to be strongly risk averse and thus may go very slowly in choosing a new cooking technology, even if the advantages are immediately obvious. The collective decision making required to obtain a Justa will only further slow this process. From when the first interviewed household adopted LPG, it took over 20 more years for even 70% of the households to adopt LPG as a cooking technology. On its own, the transition to a Sustainable cooking system may be agonizingly slow.
56
7.3 Variables Determining the Rate of Adoption – Literature If improved cookstoves such as the Justa are indeed a successful strategy for fulfilling the Sustainability vision, then increasing the pace of the transition is essential. Rogers (2003) has collected the variables which diffusion research has shown to be strongest in determining the rate of adoption of a particular innovation. Some of these have already been discussed, such as the innovation-decision process and the efforts of promoting agencies. Others, such as „communication channels‟ and the „nature of the social system‟, are important but not specific to the problem of cooking, but to the regional context. In reviewing the literature on ICSs, I determined that the key variables for successful diffusion of ICSs are: relative advantage, compatibility, relative disadvantage, and demographics. These variables are, of course, not independent of the goals of the Vision for a Sustainable cooking system, and in fact overlap significantly with the „cooking experience‟ aspect.
7.3a Relative Advantage According to Rogers relative advantage is one of the strongest predictors of an innovation‟s adoption rate (2003, p. 233). While the actual characteristics of the ICS may matter for determining impacts, it is the perceived characteristics that will determine the adoption and diffusion rate and these may differ from empirically determined characteristics (such as fuel efficiency). For example, several studies have shown that users will perceive fuelwood savings when empirical tests reveal none (Wallmo &
57 Jacobson, 1998, p. 105) (Granderson, Sandhu, Vasquez, Ramirez, & Smith, 2009), but many other improved cookstove designs have also demonstrably reduced fuel use. Studies, such as one done in Mexico, have found that the biggest advantage of using an ICS cited by users was that it removed smoke from the kitchen(Troncoso, Castillo, Masera, & Merino, 2007, p. 2804). A randomized trial in Guatemala found that after 18 months of using an ICS, twice as many women reported improved health as compared to the control group (Diaz, Bruce, Pope, Diaz, Smith, & Smith-Sivertsen, 2008, p. 4). While potent health advantages occur, they are slow and mostly long into the future and are thus heavily discounted by users (problem with preventative innovations mentioned earlier). As discussed in the Vision section, increased comfort, cleanliness and time savings could also be advantages to using an ICS.
7.3b Compatibility Local customs and values can seriously impede innovations which are not compatible with them. Some cultures may attach a spiritual value to open fires, which would be lost with the adoption of an ICS. But cultural compatibility is probably most significant when it comes to the taste of traditional foods (as discussed in the Vision section). Compatibility with previous ideas or technologies is also important. The more similar cooking with an ICS is to the traditional manner (fuel type, cookware etc), the more likely ICSs will be adopted. The Justa ICS is the outcome of a long period of stove development in Central America, and appears to be highly compatible with the cooking needs of rural Salvadorans. The Justa does involve some new cooking techniques,
58 though, which may prove to be a barrier to adoption. Rogers noted that the ability to modify an innovation to personal needs leads to a faster rate of adoption (2003, p. 183). This suggests that an ICS with flexible cooking and fuel capabilities would diffuse faster.
7.3c Relative Disadvantages The historical lack of diffusion and permanence of ICSs is probably due in a large part to an overall disadvantage to using ICSs perceived by users. Open fires being free, cost is a major factor, and this may be the biggest barrier to adoption. „Hassle Factors‟ though, may also play a key role in the discontinuance of ICSs (Miller & Mariola, 2008, p. 345). In order to utilize an ICS, one generally has to use new cooking techniques and chop wood into much smaller pieces which may be difficult, particularly for the mostly female cooks (Dhoble & Bairiganjan, 2009). Open fires require virtually no maintenance, while ICS require regular care and numerous studies have found many users to be providing inadequate or no maintenance (Khushk, Fatmi, White, & Kadir, 2005) (Troncoso, Castillo, Masera, & Merino, 2007)(Wallmo & Jacobson, 1998). Additionally, building an ICS requires finding someone with specialized training and materials rather than the do-it-yourself aspect of open fires.
7.3d Demographics The characteristics of individuals and their households may play a large role in determining whether or not an ICS is adopted. Beyond being able to afford the initial investment, a follow-up study in Mexico showed that permanent adopters were more
59 likely to be from a higher socioeconomic status (Marron, Riojas-Rodriguez, Schilmann, Romieu, & Masera, 2008). Education and wealth have also been shown to play a role in perceptions of health (Edelstein, Pitchforth, Asres, Silverman, & Kulkarni, 2008) and fuelwood collection (Chen, Heerink, & van den Berg, 2006, p. 415). Age, size of household and other characteristics may also play a role in adoption of an ICS. Many ICS researchers have suggested that efforts should be focused on regions where households purchase fuelwood (Barnes D. F., Openshaw, Smith, & van der Plas, 1994), but there is evidence that adopters of ICSs do not place a financial value on fuelwood (Troncoso, Castillo, Masera, & Merino, 2007, p. 2804).
7.4 Variables Determining the Rate of Adoption – La Comunidad 7.4a Relative Advantage
"What are the advantages of using a Justa cookstove?" 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Saves Wood
Less or No Smoke Cooks More At More Comfortable Once
Saves Time
Figure 14 Percentage of Justa ICS adopters who gave the following unprompted answers
60 After some initial open-ended, free response, the first question asked of households was what they thought the advantages were of using various cooking systems (results in figure 14). Interestingly, the saving of wood was the most commonly cited advantage given in response to this question and was also the second most commonly mentioned theme from the qualitative analysis of the whole interviews. This is unlikely to be due to financial factors as it was clear that fuelwood in La Comunidad has little inherent value, hardly anyone purchases it or thinks it is worth trying to sell. Partially, this response may be due to initial publicity; which focused on the reduction in wood use, in fact, the Justa was named “fuel-saving stove” by some interviewees. While not quantifiable, it is clear that households recognized the labor and time that goes into preparing fuel, and value the reductions created by the fuel savings of the Justa. Though not spoken of directly, interviewees gave the impression that the „savings‟ had value in and of itself. In the same way that a well-off American might proudly share a story of how he or she used 3 different coupons to save $5 on groceries. When discussing the smoke from cooking, few mentioned its long term health impacts. Instead, the advantage of less smoke was that it was cleaner and made it more comfortable to cook. Many users expressed relief at being rid of the permanent blackness of walls, cookware, etc, which characterize households using open fires. “No matter how you scrub, you cannot get rid of the black from smoke.” Many of the respondents also connected the smoke from fires to eye irritations, coughs and other discomforts. One husband commented, “Before having the stove I would go to help her with the fire and leave choking on the smoke! So I saw that she suffered from the smoke.” The increased
61 comfort while cooking is an important advantage of the Justa. The increased comfort stems not only from the reduction in smoke but also from a reduction in burns and overwhelming heat, which were the fourth most commonly noted advantage. Saving time cooking, which can then be allocated to other household activities, was very important to the interviewees. 73% of households felt they spent less time cooking now than before due to two characteristics of the Justa. Firstly, many more tortillas can be cooked on the Justa much faster than on the traditional clay comal. Secondly, several different pots and even some tortillas can all be prepared at once over the large skillet of the Justa (the third most commonly noted advantage).
7.4b Compatibility Being a mostly Catholic community, spiritual objects are focused around household shrines and community centers of worship, while the hearth is fairly free of spiritual or religious significance. This makes new cooking technologies more easily compatible within households. It is also evident that the Justa is well designed for cooking the food central to every meal in El Salvador, the tortilla. Every single family used the Justa to cook all their tortillas, an impressive record. Only one household did not agree that the food tasted better or the same cooking with the Justa as compared to before. While traditional clay pots have been almost completely replaced by modern aluminum ones, some households still prefer clay. “Beans cooked in a clay pot are better and you can‟t cook with clay on the Justa.” Clay pots are incompatible with the Justa due to their round bottom which won‟t stand up on the flat cooking surface.
62
7.4c Relative Disadvantage The installation of the Justa stove implied a serious outlay of cash, up to $100 in some cases. This is a significant amount, and even though the Justa is subsidized, it probably prices it out of what many in La Comunidad might be willing to pay. Cost was very much on everyone‟s mind, money was the most common theme identified in the qualitative analysis. When asked why others had not adopted the Justa, 58% of users thought that it was at least partially due to the cost. Of the 4 households that were not using or planning on adopting the Justa, 3 of them thought that the principal advantage of an open fire for cooking was that it didn‟t cost money. That being said, the fieldwork did reveal that the traditional system is not without expenses. 3 out of 8 households cooking without Justas paid a local builder to come and construct their cooking platform and ushaped stove rather than building it themselves. Additionally, these households estimated that they spent over $5/year replacing the clay cooking surfaces (comal) utilized to prepare tortillas. Still, the comparative cost of the Justa is a very significant barrier for its use. Fairly extensive maintenance was carried out by all the households, demonstrating their commitment to the Justa as an integral part of their cooking systems. The NGO staff in fact identified a willingness to do maintenance as one of the key factors determining adoption. Both LPG and open fires require very little maintenance, and it may be difficult to convince already overworked cooks to add yet another chore. Interestingly though, most Justa users in La Comunidad were content with the level of
63 required maintenance, 79% actually characterizing it as “easy”. Early adopters may be those more willing to take on additional maintenance tasks, and convincing other households to adopt may prove more difficult. While an effort was made to design the Justa so that it could be built locally, it does require several custom built parts, most significantly the skillet (which, depending on metal prices, costs the NGO around $30 each). Several of the users were very concerned about how they were ever going to get a new skillet. The Justas did appear fairly durable (a serious disadvantage of many past ICS designs) as all were in working order, though 8 of them had suffered cracking or other problems and had been repaired locally. The biggest disadvantage of the Justa noted by the users was its slowness to heat up, not just compared to LPG, but compared to open fires. “Quicker to heat up and cook” was the most often cited advantage of using an open fire, which over half of the Justa users still did for some of their cooking. In fact, to speed up the Justa, all of the users have taken on an additional maintenance practice. All of the insulating pumice rock is removed about once a month and thoroughly cleaned of all the accumulated ash. This dirty and time consuming task was widely noted as the solution for a slow-cooking Justa. Ironically the NGO discourages this practice because the accumulation of ash improves the Justa’s wood-burning efficiency. While some might be willing to accept this tradeoff, most would quite readily trade efficiency and extra labor for a quick-starting and quick-cooking stove.
64 7.4d Demographics
Age of Male Head of Household Years of School for Male Head of Household Age of Female Head of Household Years of School for Female Head of Household Household Size Amount of Land Owned Electricity Television Refrigerator DVD/VCR Player
Stove Adopters (19) 52 4 51 4 3.9 1.3 ha 100% 95% 84% 16%
Rural El Salvador
4.5 75% 83% 44% 20%
Figure 15 Table comparing census data with interviewed Justa Adopters (TV, Fridge and DVD ownership has been adjusted to only count those with electricity)
As others have noted, the early adopters of the Justa ICS appear to have a higher socio-economic status than the average resident. Beyond being able to purchase a refrigerator, these households tended to own a substantial amount of land. In fact, looking back at a survey of the largest orange producers in the community (the principal cash crop) completed by the myself in 2006, 7 of the 10 largest producers who reside in La Comunidad decided to adopt a Justa stove. Unfortunately, this points to the reality that the transition to a Sustainable cooking system is likely to reach the poorest last, unless serious intervention is undertaken. This study does not find any supporting evidence for the idea that ICS projects are more likely to be successful in communities which purchase wood as only 21% of Justa-adopting household supplemented their fuelwood with purchases at the time of adoption and only 1 still does so. One of the biggest differences between the demographic characteristics of the Justa adopters and the general population is ownership of a refrigerator. This suggests that Justa adopters were already willing and able to invest in appliances for their
65 kitchens. Convincing the majority of the population which has not already invested in a fridge (and presumably other kitchen appliances), to pay for a Justa may be much more difficult. It is often assumed that younger people are more likely to try new ideas and technologies, but the adopters of the Justa are generally older. While this may just reflect the local population dynamics (younger generations seeking work in the cities), there may be other causes as well. An NGO staff member observed that, “You would think that the older women who have cooked with wood forever wouldn‟t adopt the stoves, but they are a lot more disposed to put out the effort to clean the stoves; the young women want to watch TV or do other things.” It is also hard to say if education is an important factor or whether that is just correlated with the age of the adopters.
7.5 Summary of Diffusion-Related Findings
Users perceive a significant relative advantage to using the Justa over both open fires and LPG, valuing both the saving of wood and the improved cooking experience.
The Justa design is fairly compatible with local cooking needs, though a sizable portion of households deem it inadequate to completely replace open fires.
Its success is also verified by the low rate of discontinuance, none of which was due to disenchantment.
The upfront costs of the Justa are a major issue in persuading adopters, even with the current subsidy. The hassle of operating and maintaining the Justa is another significant barrier of the design.
66
Transitions in the countryside are slow to occur, and a high percentage of households need to adopt before the tipping point is reached. Justas have not yet achieved the critical mass necessary for the diffusion to tip in La Comunidad.
Ways the diffusion of Justas could be improved in the hopes of stimulating a Sustainability transition: o Knowledge about the negative impacts of the current cooking system needs to be more widely disseminated amongst potential adopters. o Models of ICSs should be installed in as many communities as possible to expose households to the possibility, and begin the slow transition (as opposed to installing as many as possible in one community and then moving on to the next). o As much as possible, individual households should be enabled to make the adoption decision, rather than the current, collective approach while both men and women need to be targeted. o Within rural communities older, wealthier households appear to be the ideal targets for building up a critical mass of adopters. At later stages of the diffusion process, subsidies could be enhanced to ensure equitable access to improved cooking technology.
67 8. STACKING VS. THE LADDER 8.1 Energy Ladder and Stacking in the Literature To attempt to understand the dynamics of energy use within households, researchers created a theoretical model known as the energy ladder. The simplicity of the model is very appealing, and it is widely utilized to varying extents by researchers and practitioners concerned with the cooking systems of households in the developing world. Basically, it hypothesizes that as incomes increase, households will switch to cleaner and more efficient fuels.
Figure 16 An illustration of the classic energy ladder. Households are assumed to move to higher boxes as their incomes rise. Source: (Duflo, Greenstone, & Hanna, 2008, p. 8)
The energy ladder model emerged from cross-country comparisons which showed a correlation between income and the use of modern fuels (Hiemstra-van der Horst & Hovorka, 2008, p. 3334). The reality, though, particularly in rural areas is quite different,
68 but while “the past two decades have witnessed a significant accumulation of data that do not conform to the “energy ladder” model‟s predictions, its basic precepts have remained entrenched (Hiemstra-van der Horst & Hovorka, 2008, p. 3334).” As opposed to what the energy ladder theory predicts though, the evidence from rural areas is that even as incomes rise, residents continue to utilize biomass fuels for a large portion of their cooking (as already discussed). In further refutation of the energy ladder model, there is broad evidence that even the poorest groups use modern fuels, such as LPG, for at least some of their cooking (Hiemstra-van der Horst & Hovorka, 2008, p. 3336). There have been efforts to keep this model relevant by explaining the discrepancies through adding things such as “barriers to switching due to initial costs”, but the energy ladder is still ultimately founded on a simple linear progression from traditional to modern (Masera & Saatkamp, 2000) which does not ultimately hold up to the rural reality. Unfortunately, most surveys only leave space for households to have one cooking fuel (such as the recent census in El Salvador), thus disguising the on-theground reality (Heltberg, 2004, p. 872). Studies that have enabled the recording of several fuels, have found that multiple fuel use is the norm in rural areas of countries as diverse as Guatemala, India, China, and Botswana (Heltberg, 2003) (Wuyuan, Zerriffi, & Jihua, 2008) (Hiemstra-van der Horst & Hovorka, 2008). An alternative to the idea that households make clean switches from one fuel to the next has been developed by Masera and colleagues (2000), based on comprehensive work completed in several Mexican states. They propose „fuel stacking‟ a model where new cooking fuels are adopted, but the traditional systems are rarely abandoned by the
69 household. From the energy ladder perspective some fuels are clearly „better‟ than others, but “from this perspective (fuel stacking), household fuels possess both desirable and undesirable characteristics, which need to be understood within a specific historic and cultural context (p. 2804).” Some of the factors they identified were: economics of fuel and stove type, technical characteristics of the stoves, cultural preferences and health impacts. Testing this model in Botswana, it was found that 75% of households used wood and a modern fuel for cooking (Hiemstra-van der Horst & Hovorka, 2008). The authors additionally found that this pattern was highly stable and there was no evidence of households slowly phasing out wood and transitioning completely to modern fuels. Unfortunately this idea of stacking technologies is not well treated by either transition or diffusion theory. Rogers (2003) discusses what he calls, reinvention when an adopter repurposes a new innovation for a different purpose (p. 180). But diffusion theory in general is based mostly on the idea that new innovations substitute for old ones (or are completely new, like television) rather than complimenting or interacting with existing technologies, which is what the fuel stacking theory implies. This suggests some of the broad theoretical principals of diffusion theory such as „critical mass‟ may not be very applicable in this case. The idea of stacking can easily be encompassed by the idea of socio-technical systems which are after all a constellation of various technologies, but it is not currently addressed explicitly by researchers. Finally, some transition theorists touch on the idea that new technologies may be „domesticated‟. In other words the way in which adopters use a new technology and fit it into their lives matters for transitions (Elzen, Geels, & Green, 2004, p. 4).
70 The livelihoods approach would actually predict that fuel switching wouldn‟t play out in reality and should be a powerful tool in understanding household fuel stacking. Households are understood to deploy their various assets (including multiple cooking technologies and fuels) in a manner to maximize the livelihood outcomes. There may be many influencing factors including other assets of the household and the surrounding socio-ecological system. Cooking technologies cannot be compared in a linear fashion (as the energy ladder does) and some researchers have tried using a radar diagram to compare the many different characteristics of cooking technologies (figure 17). This could prove to be a useful tool, though its shape is likely to change between households, during the course of a year and as the outside factors evolve (price of LPG for example).
Figure 17 Radar diagram comparing three cooking technologies in Mexico Source: (Masera, Diaz, & Berrueta, 2005, p. 34)
71 8.2 Evidence for Fuel Stacking in La Comunidad It is clear from my fieldwork that households in La Comunidad are not switching between or substituting fuels, but stacking them in a diverse and complex fashion. Among households interviewed, utilizing multiple fuels was the norm.
% of Households using Different Fuel Mixes 100%
75%
50%
25%
0% Biomass
Biomass & LPG
Figure 18 Percentage of households using just biomass fuels compared to the percentage using both biomass and LPG for their cooking in La Comunidad.
As can be seen in figure 18 the vast majority (89%) of households used both wood and LPG as fuel for cooking their food and are therefore „fuel stackers‟ and not energy ladder climbers. The situation is actually more complex when one considers the actual technologies used to cook rather than just the fuel (figure 19).
72
Technology Combinations Used for Cooking 50%
25%
0% Open Fire
Justa
Open Fire & LPG
Justa & LPG
Open Fire, Justa & LPG
Figure 19 Among the 27 households interviewed 5 different combinations of cooking technologies were used, the most common being all three
The data displayed in figure 19 shows that very few households find one technology to be sufficient for meeting its cooking needs. The residents of La Comunidad do not see a hierarchy of cooking technologies as the energy ladder theory would suggest they must, but rather see a set of technologies, each of which has its own strengths and weaknesses that generally are best used in combination (this is unsurprising when thought about from the livelihood perspective where assets are combined to maximize specific, desired outcomes).
8.3 Stove Stacking in La Comunidad Clearly the Justa is viewed as a cooking technology distinct from open fires and LPG, thus fuel stacking must be modified to „stove stacking.‟ The rest of this section will analyze the stove stacking of households by comparing the three cooking technologies,
73 the Justa, LPG and Open Fire, using just the responses of the 19 households which adopted the Justa.
8.3a Food – Stove Connection The stacking of fuels is a purposeful strategy developed by households, not a random mix. This is evident because each household consistently chooses to prepare certain foods with certain stoves. For example, in one household, tortillas are always prepared using the Justa, while beans are cooked over an open fire and coffee heated up on the LPG stove. In another corn, beans and tortillas are all cooked with the Justa, while rice and soups are made with LPG and tamales with open fires. There are some broad generalizations which can be made, but specifically each household has an almost unique combination of foods and stoves. Figure 20 shows that the Justa can succesfully prepare most of the main dishes consumed in La Comunidad, but tortillas are the only one for which every household uses it. LPG is most commonly used for items which involve boiling water or frying, while open fire is used mostly in preparing locally grown staples (corn for making tortilla dough, traditional tamales and beans).
74
% of Households Using a Specific Stove to Prepare Each Dish 100%
80% 60% Open Fire 40%
LPG Justa
20% 0% Tortillas
Corn
Tamales
Beans
Rice
Coffee/Hot Drink
Figure 20 Percentage of household using a specific stove to prepare each dish
8.3b LPG and Stove Stacking Even though LPG is heavily subsidized in El Salvador, everyone agreed that “gas (LPG) is expensive, and it wouldn‟t last for all the food.” Additionally, for foods such as tortillas, there is widespread agreement that the taste is better cooked over a fire. In fact several interviewees mentioned how their children in the city would like to prepare some of their food with wood, but it is too expensive there, so they just use LPG. Despite its expense, LPG is being widely utilized by the residents of La Comunidad due to several advantages. The most important is the speed in which an LPG stove lights and can cook food. This was identified as an advantage by 84% of households and no other advantage was mentioned more then once or twice. This speed makes LPG ideal for preparing breakfast, for which it was used by 74% of households; as one woman noted, using LPG to make breakfast allows her to get up at 5:30am as opposed to 4:30am in order to get
75 breakfast ready in time for the kids to go to school. The quick, high temperatures of LPG also make it ideal for frying foods or boiling water for dishes or drinks like coffee. Some households appreciated the lack of smoke, with one noting (who themselves didn‟t own a gas stove) that in their kid‟s new house they were only going to use LPG inside to keep the smoke from ruining the house (they of course, would have a space outside for an open fire though).
8.3c Justa and Stove Stacking “With this stove, we have seen a huge savings of wood. Now when I cook, I feel good, thanks to God, and there is lots of wood because it (the Justa) saves so much wood. With two pieces of wood I am making tortillas, cooking soups, coffee and more with the same little fire. I like to go outside and see all the smoke that is leaving the kitchen (by the chimney). I think of the fact that if it weren‟t for the stove than all this smoke would be filling the house and myself – it would even get in the food.” The interviewees agreed that the Justa (once one gets used to it) does a good job of cooking tortillas, and many felt it was quicker then the traditional way. Cooking tortillas uses at least 40% of fuelwood in a traditional cooking system (Berrueta, Edwards, & Masera, 2008), and the cook is also exposed to a lot smoke as she must attend to the tortillas the whole time they are cooking. The advantages the Justa provided were well appreciated by the households - making tortilla production more fuel efficient and less
76 smoky. Many households also thought the Justa was great because one could cook all their food for the meal on it. Others though thought it was too slow, while some simply explained that, “I know other people cook everything on it (the Justa) but I wasn‟t able to accustom myself to using the Justa for other foods (besides tortillas).”
8.3d Open Fire and Stove Stacking There are many reasons that rural residents generally prefer to use biomass as their fuel for cooking which have already been discussed. While utilizing the prefered fuel (wood), the Justa presents many additional advantages over open fires. And indeed, 8 households have essentially abandoned using open fires for any of their cooking. But the majority of households which adopted the Justa have chosen to continue to use open fires for at least some of their cooking. The biggest reason is that when cooking just one dish, an open fire is actually much quicker. Additionally, some traditional cookware, such as that for beans and tamales, have rounded bottoms which can‟t be cooked on the Justa. Since the Justa now occupied the space where most of these households had previously cooked with open fires, many now had a separate space, generally outside, where they prepared the dishes they thought worked best with open fires, which suggests that the continued use of open fires may not be as unhealthy as could be feared.
8.3e Transitory Stove Stacking? The evidence from the field in La Comunidad is that the energy ladder does not explain what rural households are actually doing, which is combining a variety of
77 cooking technologies at once. This is done in a strategic fashion, with certain stoves deemed ideal for different foods or cooking needs. Some proponents of the fuel switching/energy ladder model have insisted that the use of multiple fuels is just a transitory phase and not meaningful. But in La Comunidad as elsewhere this situation appears to be highly stable. One-third of the households interviewed had been using LPG for over a decade and none of them showed any signs of abandoning fuelwood and „switching‟ completely to LPG. After two years of use, most households that adopted the Justa seemed to have reached a stable arrangement for the mixed-use of the different cooking technologies. Understanding why households choose to use different stoves for different purposes is essential for developing a successful strategy to achieve a Sustainable cooking system. The next section will offer some suggestive evidence that emerged out of this research angle.
8.4 Stove Use Index In order to measure and compare the diversity of stove use among households, I created a „stove use index‟. The index combines three factors: number of days per week used, number of meals per day used and the number of different foods prepared with each the stove. These results were normalized so that each household received a rating from 1 - 10 (1-low use, 10-high use) for each of the three stoves (Appendix V). The results show an amazing amount of diversity.
78
Survey ID
Justa Rating
LPG Rating
Open Fire Rating
JSA01 9 6 0 JSA02 8 5 8 JSA03 10 5 1 JSA04 5 8 7 JSA05 10 0 0 JSA06 7 5 7 JSA07 4 10 0 JSA08 9 8 6 JSA09 7 10 9 JSA10 5 9 10 JSA11 10 3 0 JSA12 10 3 4 JSA13 10 7 1 JSA14 8 7 9 JSA15 9 5 6 JSA16 8 9 8 JSA17 6 7 7 JSA18 10 4 0 JSA19 10 5 2 Figure 21 Stove Use Index that rates the extent of use for each stove type for each household. 10 being highest and 1 being lowest.
In order to simplify the analysis, particularly for such a small sample size, the ratings for each stove were divided into three groups, high users, medium users and low users. This still leaves 27 different categorizations that a household‟s cooking system could fall under. For the analysis I compared the high, medium and low groups to look for any differences. Obviously, a household‟s rating in each category are not independent from one another, making it harder to separate whether the important result is high use of one technology, or the low use of another. This combined with the small
79 sample size makes these results intriguing, but mostly speculitive and suggestive for further investigation. This index creates a rating for cooking use which lines up well with how the households viewed the different technologies. For example, it was clear why the low-use open-fire-group wasn‟t utilizing this technology much, 75% said they thought it had no advantages. One thing that was evenly distributed amongst all groups was a concern about money and the cost of things. There were many small differences between groups but some of the clearer trends will be examined here:
8.4a Justa and Stove Use Index High-users of the Justa were much more concious of and percise about the amount of fuel (both wood and LPG) that they were currently using, and were more likely to be able to calculate the savings since adopting the Justa. Unsuprisingly they also reported a higher savings then what was reported by the other groups. Besides saving fuel, high Justa users liked how they could cook many things at once on the Justa (this also enabled them to more easily be high users). Finally, only high Justa users on their own mentioned the long-term health consequences of smoke. In general high-users of Justas appear to be more strategic and longer term thinkers, tracking their fuel use and trying to reduce it, planning their meals in advance so as to fit everything on the Justa and concerned over long term consequences of their choices.
80 8.4b LPG and Stove Use Index High-users of LPG have on average had their stoves for over 10 years. When asked about the advantages of all the cooking options- speed, comfort and reduced smoke were the most significant concerns while the wood savings of the Justa was comparitively less so. This group of high-LPG users showed the least awareness of the health impacts of smoke, only 33% thinking it influenced their health and 0% that it influenced their children‟s, while for the rest of the households 100% thought smoke influenced their health and 54% thought it influenced their kids. Kitchens of this group also tended to be built out of more permenant materials. In general high users of LPG appear to be looking for a quicker and more comfortable cooking experience. The reduction in heat and smoke which creates a much improved cooking experience is more important for them then fuel savings or long-term health benfits.
8.4c Open Fire and Stove Use Index The biggest thing which seperated the high users of fire from the rest, was a much larger average household size, 5.2 vs. 3.5. Perhaps the Justa is not sufficient to prepare enough food for larger households, or time is shorter so every stove has to be used at once to prepare meals on time. The low users of fire were also very distinct from the rest in several interesting ways. The women heads of household were far better educated, averaging an 8th grade education compared to only 2 years of school for the rest. Also, only 40% of these households owned more than ½ Ha of land vs. 80% of the rest. This is probably why there was suggestive evidence that these households were
81 more likely to collect their wood by pruning trees rather then chopping them down. Generally speaking, larger household size could be a cause for households‟ continued use of open fire (or could also just be correlated with a relevant variable, e.g. less educted women have larger families). A highly educated female head of household seems to be a key for phasing out the use of open fires completely. Limited access to fuelwood resources (less land) also appears to be a motivating factor for the reduced use of open fires.
8.5 Why Stove Stacking Matters The evidence from La Comunidad supports the hypothesis that households strategically utilize multiple fuels and cooking technologies. The particular use of each technology depends on its characteristics, and on the household‟s strategies and resources. This is very important for the transition to a Sustainable cooking system for several reasons. First, it is essential that a clear and accurate picture of the current situation and problem definition be developed. As long as the problem with cooking is framed with energy ladder thinking, the strategies developed will continue to fail. Secondly, analyzing why households choose to use specific cooking technologies for different tasks reveals important themes which can be used to improve the strategies (as part of the iterative transition effort). For example, while economic concerns are important, households also are choosing how to utilize their cooking technologies based on their ability to cook local foods, speed in which they cook, comfort while cooking and in some cases the effects on their health. Most importantly though, this finding suggests
82 that the whole Vision of a Sustainable Cooking System should be re-imagined to include a multi-stove approach. Stove stacking fits with the idea of socio-technical systems and points out that the Sustainable Vision should actually be composed of a constellation of laws, behaviors, norms and various cooking stoves, not just a single technology. The existence of stove stacking actually makes achieving the vision far more possible. It is highly unlikely that, in the near term, a technology will be invented which can achieve all the things the Vision of a Sustainable cooking system calls for. But a set of different technologies could be combined into a new socio-technical regime, which achieves much the same outcomes as one, „perfectly Sustainable‟ cooking technology.
83 9. THE IMPACTS OF THE JUSTA ON LA COMUNIDAD Assessing the impact of any new cooking technology is essential for measuring the progress towards the Sustainable Vision, and in figuring out improved strategies for achieving it. This fieldwork was not focused on measuring impacts, and no empirical measurements were taken of fuel use, health, greenhouse gas production, or any other relevant indicator. But based on self-reported information from the households some general ideas about the impact can be formulated. Additionally, a brief look will be given as to how incorporating stove-stacking changes the calculation of impacts.
9.1 Impact – Health Studies in Honduras (Clark M. L., 2007), Guatemala (Diaz, Bruce, Pope, Diaz, Smith, & Smith-Sivertsen, 2008), India (Duflo, Greenstone, & Hanna, 2008) and elsewhere have asked respondents to self-rate their health and report on the existence of different respiratory symptoms while cooking. While there are likely to be biases, these studies have found a strong correlation between self-reported health and symptoms related to cooking and the actual health of the respondents. As can be seen clearly in figure 22, the users of the Justa stoves reported far less problems with health issues related to cooking than did the households which did not have a Justa or the households from a larger Guatemala study (where cooking is very similar and from which the questions were taken). More complete work would need to be done, but it appears that introducing the Justa stove to the cooking mix progresses us towards the health aspect of the Sustainable cooking vision.
84 While cooking do you experience any of the following symptoms? Cough Headache Eyes
Justa Adopters (19)
No Justa (8)
Guatemala Study (180)
11% 5% 26%
50% 38% 88%
66% 75% 86%
Figure 22 Comparative results of self-reported health symptoms from cooking
9.2 Impact – Fuel Use Accurately measuring household fuel use is very difficult (Hiemstra-van der Horst & Hovorka, 2008) and users‟ assessments are often inaccurate (Wallmo & Jacobson, 1998) (Granderson, Sandhu, Vasquez, Ramirez, & Smith, 2009). In this study interviewees were asked how long it took to consume a common measurement of wood known locally as a „pante‟ as well as a 25 lb tank of LPG. While many could estimate their current usage with a degree of confidence, most struggled to guess how much they were using before owning the Justa. 85% of the Justa users did agree that they were using less fuel now. Keeping these caveats in mind, calculating the estimated savings is still worthwhile. From the information collected I estimate that households without Justas use 1.2 pantes of wood per standard adult per year, while with a Justa the household average 0.7 pantes/standard adult per year, a 40% reduction (Appendix VI). This matches well with TWP‟s claim of a 50% reduction and the results of other studies on similar stoves. This is a very significant reduction, which would imply a large savings of labor for the households and, potentially, an equally large reduction in greenhouse gases (calculating this accurately appears to be currently impossible). In addition over 30% of the Justa using household reported using an average of over 4 fewer tanks of
85 LPG per year, saving the households at least $20/year each (and the government money in subsidies as well). Overall, the introduction of the Justa has improved the cooking experience of most users, improved their health and reduced their fuel use and its related costs. But these average impacts disguise a huge variability between households. This variation could to a large part be explained by the different ways in which the households have incorporated the cooking technologies (the stove stacking variations). This points to how the energy ladder model can lead to gross overestimations of the impact that the spreading of a new technology will have in addressing the negative consequences of the current system.
9.3 The Impact of Stove Stacking Improved cookstove programs have often claimed astounding benefits which have not proved real or long lasting (such as the case of the national program in India discussed earlier). A large part of this is due to the fact that far less ICSs are in use then were planned to be built, and their actual field characteristics are vastly different then what is measured in the lab. But part of the inaccuracy is due to the assumption when modeling impacts that households make a full switch to the new ICS technology. As we have seen, households typically stack cooking technologies. The impact of the different ways in which households use the stoves was evident from the study. Households in the low use open fire group did not have a single smoke related health complaint while those in the high Justa group used 30% less fuelwood. Understanding the nature of stove
86 stacking, therefore also serves an essential purpose in estimating impacts of projects and interventions.
87 10. CONCLUSION The hundreds of millions of cooking systems in the countryside of the developing world are a key challenge which is calling out for a Sustainability approach. Transition management, socio-technical regimes, diffusion theory and a livelihoods approach were brought together in this paper to address this problem. Socio-technical regimes proved to be a very useful construct for understanding the cooking system, particularly as the extent of stove stacking was revealed. Transition management and the reflexive governance approach gave this research an action-orientation and a framed this whole paper. Unfortunately diffusion theory was not as useful. While the framework is very useful for describing the adoption of a technology and can provide some very specific feedback as to how to improve the adoption of a specific technology, it does not add much to the big picture. In a sense this may stem from over-simplistic assumptions such as s-shaped curves and a new technology being diffused in a vacuum (of other existing technologies). The overall livelihoods framework was not utilized specifically for this paper but many of its perspectives were incorporated throughout in order to better understand the behavior and decisions of these rural households. The first step in this paper was to clearly outline the problem and current situation. This formed the basis of a Vision of a Sustainable Cooking System. To be a true Sustainable Vision, this should be incorporating extensive stakeholder input and participation but for the time being the household interviews are relied upon to provide stakeholder perspectives. The Sustainable Vision has five characteristics: health- to reduce or eliminate indoor air pollution, climate change- to reduce or eliminate the
88 production of greenhouse gases from cooking, financial cost-to minimize the cash outlay of poor households for cooking fuel, non-financial costs-to enable household to minimize to their preference, and cooking experience-to be excellent at preparing local foods while comfortable, clean and time saving. This Vision is based upon the currently understood problems and will vary greatly depending on upon the ever changing context. Future scenario planning is a necessary area for work in order to create a stronger and more useful Vision. There is a spectrum of strategies which could be attempted to achieve this vision. The historical record and a critical examination do not leave modern fuels, LPG and electricity looking like viable options for the near term rural Sustainable Cooking System but electricity in particular may prove to be the best long-term solution (assuming “clean” energy, low costs and rising incomes). Improved cookstoves (ICS) have the promise of being able to achieve the Vision soon but neither the technology nor its diffusion and uptake been conclusively demonstrated. Fieldwork in La Comunidad, El Salvador, provided an in depth look at one ICS known as the Justa. The Justa is a highly successful design that is used regularly and has not been abandoned but by the same token it is not on pace to reach a large proportion of rural El Salvadorans.
The clumsy
decision process may be slowing things down in addition to the substantial upfront cost even after subsidies. At its current pace the transition is moving too slowly and would take a very long time for this to lead to a regime shift in the cooking system of rural El Salvador, if it ever would.
89 A separate but very important finding also emerged out of my fieldwork, stove stacking. Households are incorporating multiple cooking technologies depending on their needs and preferences. This is contrary to the energy ladder view in which there is a clear preference for more modern technologies and the old will inevitably be abandoned. Rather than viewing this stove stacking as a barrier, this is an opportunity to achieve the Vision of a Sustainable cooking system even faster and more effectively. Instead of pursuing some holy grail of cooking technology that meets all the goals, agencies should be seeking to deploy a range of options which when combined in the rural kitchen yield virtually the same results. In the place of outsiders paternalistically telling rural households how they should prepare their food, cooks should be presented with a range of choices which meet improved Sustainability standards and can be combined in a way that optimizes the cooking system and lead us to the transition sought at the start of this thesis.
90 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, S., Annecke, W., Blaustein, E., Jobert, A., Proskurnya, E., Nappez, C., et al. (December 2006). A Guide to Monitoring and Evaluation for Energy Projects. Monitoring and Evaluation in Energy for Development (M&EED) International Working Group. Agarwal, B. (1983). Diffusion of Rural Innovations: Some analytical issues and the case of wood-burning stoves. World Development , 11 (4), 359-376. Alvarez, D., Palma, C., & Tay, M. (2004). Evaluation of Improved STove Protrams in Guatemala: final report of project case studies. Energy Sector Management Assistance Program Technical Paper, World Bank Group. Anonymous. (2009, September). Making Affordable, Efficient Stoves for the Masses. Appropriate Technology , pp. 14-17. Arnez, C. A., Edwards, R. D., Johnson, M., Zuk, M., Rojas, L., Jimenez, R. D., et al. (2008). Reduction in Personal Exposures to Particulate Matter and Carbon Monoxide as a Result of the Installation of a Patsari Improved Cookstove in Michoacan Mexico. Indoor Air , 18, 93-105. Arnold, M., & Persson, R. (2003). Reassessing the Fuelwood Situation in Developing Countries. International Forestry Review , 5 (4), 379-383. Bailis, R., Berrueta, V., Chengappa, C., Dutta, K., Edwards, R., Masera, O., et al. (2007). Performance Testing for Monitoring Improved Biomass Stove Interventions: Experiences of the Household Energy and Health Project. Energy for Sustainable Development , 11 (2), 57-70. Bailis, R., Cowan, A., Berrueta, V., & Masera, O. (2009). Arresting the Killer in the Kitchen: The promises and pitfalls of commercializing improved cookstoves. World Development , 37 (10), 1694-1705. Ball, J. (2009, November 27). Power Shift: Small Energy-Saving Steps can make Big Strides; Think Stoves. Wall Street Journal , p. A16. Barnes, D. F., Openshaw, K., Smith, K. R., & van der Plas, R. (1994). What Makes People Cook with Improved Biomass Stoves? Energy Series, World Bank. Barnes, D., Openshaw, K., Smith, K. R., & van der Plas, R. (1993). The Design and Diffusion of Improved Cooking Stoves. The World Bank Research Observer , 8 (2), 119-141.
91 Bates, E., Bruce, N., Doig, A., & Gitonga, S. (2002, June 11). Participatory Approaches for Alleviating Indoor Air Pollution in Rural Kenyan Kitchens. Boiling Point , pp. 12-15. Berrueta, V., Edwards, R. D., & Masera, O. R. (2008). Energy Performance of WoodBurning Cookstoves in Michoacan, Mexico. Renewable Energy , 33, 859-870. Bhattarai, N., & Risal, S. (2009). Barrier for Implementation of Improved Cook Stove Program in Nepal. Journal of the Institute of Engineering , 7 (1), 1-5. Bilger, B. (2009, December 21 & 28). Hearth Surgery: the quest for a stove that can save the world. The New Yorker , pp. 84-97. Bond, T. (October 13, 2009). Air Pollution and the Climate System: Sustainability Now and Later. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Civil and Environmental Engineering. ISTC Seminar Series. Bond, T., & Sun, H. (2005). Can Reducing Black Carbon Emissions Counteract Global Warming? Envrionmental Science and Technology , 39 (16), 5921-5926. Bond, T., Venkataraman, C., & Masera, O. (2004). Global atmospheric impacts of residential fuels. Energy for Sustainable Development , 8 (3), 20-32. Boy, E., Bruce, N., Smith, K. R., & Hernandez, R. (2000). Fuel Efficiency of an Improved Wood-Burning Stove in Rural Guatemala: Implications for Health Environment and Development. Energy for Sustainable Development , 4 (2), 2331. Bunch, R. (1982). Two Ears of Corn: a guide to people-centered agricultural improvement. Oklahoma City: World Neighbors. Ceceiski, E. (2000). The Role of Women in Sustinable Energy Development. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Chaudhuri, S., & Pfaff, A. (2003). Fuel-Choice and Indoor Air Quality: a householdlevel perspective on economic growth and the environment. Chen, L., Heerink, N., & van den Berg, M. (2006). Energy Consumption in Rural China: A household model for three villages in Jiangxi Province. Ecological Economics , 58, 407-420. Clark, M. L. (2007). Indoor Air Pollution from the Cookstove Smoke and Adverse Health Effects Among Honduran Women. Colorado State University, Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences. Fort Collins: ProQuest.
92 Clark, M. L., Reynolds, S. J., Burch, J. B., Conway, S., Bachand, A. M., & Peel, J. L. (2010). Indoor Air Pollution, Cookstove Quality and Housing Characteristics in Two Honduran Communities. Environmental Research , 110, 12-18. Clark, W. C., & Dickson, N. M. (2003). Sustainability Science: The Emerging Research Program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 100 (14), 80598061. Cooke, P., Kohlin, G., & Hyde, W. F. (2008). Fuelwood, Forests and Community Management- Evidence from Household Studies. Environmenta and Development Economics , 13, 103-135. Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE. Czaja, R., & Blair, J. (2005). Designing surveys: a guide to decisions and procedures. Pine Forge Press. Dasgupta, S., Huq, M., Khaliquzzaman, M., & Wheeler, D. (2007). Improving Indoor Air Quality for Poor Families: a controlled experiment in Bangladesh. World Bank, Development Policy Group. Dherani, M., Pope, D., Mascarenhas, M., Smith, K. R., Weber, M., & Bruce, N. (2008). Indoor Air Pollution from Unprocessed Solid Fuel Use and Pneumonia Risk in Children Aged under Five Years: a systematice review and meta-analysis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization , 86 (5), 390-398. Dhoble, R., & Bairiganjan, S. (2009). Cooking Practices and Cookstoves Field Insights: A Pilot Study of User Experience with Traditional and Improved Cookstoves. Centre for Development Finance, Institute for Financial Management and Research. Diaz, E., Bruce, N., Pope, D., Diaz, A., Smith, K. R., & Smith-Sivertsen, T. (2008). Selfrated Health Among Mayan Women Participating in a Randomised Intervention Trial Reducing Indoor Air Pollution in Guatemala. BMC International Health and Human Rights , 8 (7). Duflo, E., Greenstone, M., & Hanna, R. (2008, August 9). Cooking Stoves, Indoor Air Pollution and Respiratory Health in Rural Orissa. Economic and Political Weekly , pp. 71-76. Duflo, E., Greenstone, M., & Hanna, R. (2008). Indoor Air Pollution, Health and Economic Well-being. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society , 1-9.
93 Duflo, E., Greenstone, M., & Hanna, R. (2008). Survey: Indoor Air Pollution, Health and Economic Well-being. SAPIENS , 1 (1), 7-16. Edelstein, M., Pitchforth, E., Asres, G., Silverman, M., & Kulkarni, N. (2008). Awareness of Health Effects of Cooking Smoke Among Women in the Gondar Region of Ethiopia: A Pilot Survey. BMC International Health and Human Rights , 8 (10), 1-7. Edwards, J. H., & Langpap, C. (2005). Startup Costs and the Decision to Switch from Firewood to Gas Fuel. Land Economics , 81 (4), 570-586. Edwards, R., Hubbard, A., Khalakdina, A., Pennise, D., & Smith, K. (2007). Design Considerations for Field Studies of Changes in Indoor Air Pollution Due to Improved Stoves. Energy for Sustainable Development , 11 (2), 71-81. El Salvador Program. (n.d.). Retrieved May 13, 2010, from Trees, Water and People: helping communities sustainably manage thier natural resources: http://www.treeswaterpeople.org/stoves/programs/el_salvador.htm Elzen, B., Geels, F., & Green, K. (2004). System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability. Northampton: Edward Elgar. Energy Information Agency. (2010). Annual Energy Outlook. Ezzati, M., & Kammen, D. M. (2001). Indoor Air Pollution from Biomass Combustion and Acute Respiratory Infections in Kenya: an exposure-response study. The Lancet , 358, 619-624. Ezzati, M., & Kammen, D. (2002). The Health Impacts of Exposure to Indoor Air Pollution from Solid Fuels in Developing Countries: Knowledge, Gaps and Data Needs. Environmental Health Perspectives , 110 (11), 1057-1068. Feder, G., & Umali, D. L. (1993). The Adoption of Agricultural Innovations: A Review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 43, 215-239. Fondo Ambiental de El Salvador FONAES. (2000). 407 Esperanzas para El Desarollo Sostenible. Fullerton, D., Bruce, N., & Gordon, S. (2008). Indoor Air Pollution from Biomass Fuel Smoke is a Major Health Concern in the Developing World. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene , 102, 843-851. Geels, F. (2002). Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration Processes: a multi-level perspective and a case study. Research Policy , 31, 1257-1274.
94 Gibson, R. (2006). Sustainability Assessment: basic components of a practical approach. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal , 24 (3), 170-182. Gladwell, M. (2002). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Back Bay: Boston. Gordon, J. K., Emmel, N. D., Manaseki, S., & Chambers, J. (2007). Perceptions of the Health Effects of Stoves in Mongolia. Journal of Health Organization and Management , 21 (6), 580-587. Granderson, J., Sandhu, J. S., Vasquez, D., Ramirez, E., & Smith, K. R. (2009). Fuel Use and Design Analysis of Improved Woodburning Cookstoves in the Guatemalan Highlands. Biomass and Bioenergy , 33, 306-315. Haines, A., & Kammen, D. (2000). Sustainable Energy and Health. Global Change and Human Health , 1 (1), 78-86. Hecht, S. B., Kandel, S., Gomes, I., Cuellar, N., & Rosa, H. (2006). Globalization, Forest Resurgence, and Environmental Politics in El Salvador. World Development , 34 (2), 308-323. Heltberg, R. (2005). Factors Determining Household Fuel Choice in Guatemala. Environment and Development Economics , 10, 337-361. Heltberg, R. (2004). Fuel Switching: evidence from eight developing countries. Energy Economics , 26, 869-887. Heltberg, R. (2003). Household Fuel and Energy Use in Developing Countries - A Multicountry Study. The World Bank, Oil and Gas Division. Heltberg, R., Arndt, T. C., & Sekhar, N. U. (2000). Fuelwood Consumption and Forest Degradation: A household model for domestic energy substitution in rural India. Land Economics , 76 (2), 213-232. Hiemstra-van der Horst, G., & Hovorka, A. (2008). Reassessing the "Energy Ladder": household energy use in Maun, Botswana. Energy Policy , 36, 3333-3344. Household Energy and Health Project. (2006). Monitoring and Evaluation of Improved Cookstove Programs for Indoor Air Quality and Stove Performance. School of Public Health, Indoor Air Pollution Group. Berkeley: University of California. Hutton, G., Rehfuess, E., & Tediosi, F. (2007). Evaluatino of the Costs and Benefits of Interventions to Reduce Indoor Air Pollution. Energy for Sustainable Development , 11 (4), 34-43.
95 Hutton, G., Rehfuess, E., Tediosi, F., & Weiss, S. (2006). Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Household Energy and Health Interventions at Global and Regional Levels. World Health Organization. International Energy Agency. (2006). Energy for Cooking in Developing Countries. In I. E. Agency, World Energy Outlook 2006 (pp. 419-445). IEA/OECD. Jetter, J. J., & Kariher, P. (2009). Solid-Fuel Household Cookstoves: Characterization of Performance and Emissions. Biomass and Bioenergy , 33, 294-305. Jiang, R., & Bell, M. (2008). A Comparison of Particulate Matter from Biomass-Burning Rural and Non-Biomass-Burning Urban Households in Northeastern China. Envrionmental Health Perspectives , 116 (7), 907-914. Johnson, M., Edwards, R., Ghilardi, A., Berrueta, V., Frenk, C., & Masera, O. (2009). Quantification of Carbon Savings from Improved Biomass Cookstove Projects. Envrionmental Science and Technology , 43 (7), 2456-2462. Joona, V., Chandraa, A., & Bhattacharyab, M. (2009). Household Energy Consumption Pattern and Socio-Cultural Dimensions Associated with it: A case study of rural Haryana, India. Biomass and Bioenergy , 33 (11), 1509-1512. Kammen, D. M. (1995). From Energy Efficiency to Social Utility: Lessons from Cookstove Design, Dissemination, and Use. In UNDP, Energy as an Instrument for Socio-Economic Developemtn (pp. 38-48). Kanagawa, M., & Nakata, T. (2007). Analysis of the Energy Access Improvement and Its Socio-Economic Impacts in Rural Areas of Developing Countries. Ecological Economics , 62, 319-329. Kates, R., Clark, W., Corell, R., Hall, M., Jaeger, C., Lowe, I., et al. (2001). Sustainability Science. Science , 292 (5517), 641-642. Keim, B. (2009, December 16). How to Slow Climate Change for Just $15 Billion. Retrieved April 28, 2010, from Wired: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/black-carboncontrol/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A +wiredscience+%28Blog+-+Wired+Science%29#ixzz0he8X0eth Khushk, W., Fatmi, Z., White, F., & Kadir, M. M. (2005). Health and Social Impacts of Improved Stoves on Rural Women: a pilot intervention in Sindh, Pakistan. Indoor Air , 15, 311-316. Kishore, V., & Ramana, P. (2002). Improved Cookstoves in Rural India: How Improved are They? a critique of the perceived benefits from the National Programme on Improved Chulhas (NPIC). Energy , 27, 47-63.
96 Krishna, C. V. (2007). Improved Cookstoves; Yet to be a Success Story. www.bioenergylists.org. Limmeechokchai, B., & Chawana, S. (2007). Sustainable Energy Development Strategies in Rural Thailand: The Case of the Improved Cooking STove and the Small Biogras Digester. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 11, 818-837. MacCarty, N., Ogle, D., Still, D., Bond, T., & Roden, C. (2008). A Laboratory Comparison of the Global Warming Impact of Five Major Types of Biomass Cooking Stoves. Energy for Sustainable Development , 7 (2), 5-14. Madubansi, M., & Shackleton, C. M. (2007). Changes in Fuelwood Use and Selection Following Electrification in the Bushbuckridge Lowveld, South Africa. Journal of Environmental Management , 83, 416-426. Makame, M. O. (2007). Adoption of Improved Stoves and Deforestation in Zanzibar. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal , 18 (3), 353365. Manibog, F. R. (1984). Improved Cooking SToves in Developing Countries: Problems and Opportunities. Annual Review of Energy , 9, 199-227. MARN. (2000). Estrategia Nacional de Diversidad Biologica. Gobierno de El Salvador. Marron, T., Riojas-Rodriguez, H., Schilmann, A., Romieu, I., & Masera, O. (2008). Factors that Modify the Adoption of an Improved Chimney Stove (PATSARI) Reducing Indoor Air Pollution in Rural Mexico. Epidemiology , 19 (6), Supplement p S262. Masera, O. R., & Saatkamp, B. D. (2000). From Linear Fuel Switching to Multiple Cooking Strategies: a critique and alternative to the energy ladder model. World Development , 28 (12), 2083-2103. Masera, O., Diaz, R., & Berrueta, V. (2005). From Cookstoves to Cooking Systems: the Integrated Program on Sustainable Household Energy Use in Mexico. Energy for Sustainable Development , 9 (1), 25-36. Masera, O., Edwards, R., Arnez, C. A., Berrueta, V., Johnson, M., Bracho, L. R., et al. (2007). Impact of Patsari Improved Cookstoves on Indoor Air Quality in Michoacan, Mexico. Energy for Sustainable Development , 11 (2), 45-56. McCann, A. (n.d.). Combating Indoor Air Pollution in Bangladesh. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from Woods Institute for the Environment: http://woods.stanford.edu/cgibin/evp.php?name=indoor
97 Mehta, S., & Shahpar, C. (2004). The Health Benefits of Interventions to Reduce Indoor Air Pollution from Solid Fuel Use: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Energy fro Sustainable Development , 8 (3), 53-59. Mekonnen, A., & Kohlin, G. (2009). Determinants of Houeshold Fuel Choice in Major Cities in Ethiopia. Working Papers in Economics, University of Gothenburg, School of Business, Economics and Law. Miah, D., Al Rashid, H., & Yong Shin, M. (2009). Wood Fuel Use in the Traditional Cooking Stoves in the Rural Floodplain Areas of Bangladesh: a socioenvironmental perspective. Biomass and Bioenergy , 33, 70-78. Miller, M., & Mariola, M. J. (2008). The Discontinuance of Environmental Technologies in the Humid Tropics of Costa Rica: Results from a Qualitative Survey. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting, (pp. 338-349). E.A.R.T.H. University, Costa Rica. Ministerio de Economia. (2007). Datos de Censo 2007. Retrieved May 13, 2010, from Censos de El Salvador: http://www.censos.gob.sv/ Ministero de Economia. (2007). Principales Logros del Ministerio de Economia. http://www.minec.gob.sv/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=categor y&id=8:&download=15:06&Itemid=63. Monitoring and Evaluation. (2008). Boiling Point: A Practioner's Journal on Household Energy, Stoves and Poverty Reduction , 55. Office, U. E. (2002). Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results. New York: United Nations Development Programme. Pandey, S., & Yadama, G. N. (1992). Community Development Programs in Nepal: A test of diffusion of innovation theory. Social Service Review , 66 (4), 582-597. Panwar, N., Kurchania, A., & Rathore, N. (2009). Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases by Adoption of Improved Biomass Cookstoves. Mitigation Adaption Strategies for Global Change , 14, 569-578. Andersen, M. M., & Tukker, A. (Eds.). (2006). Perspectives on Radical Changes to Sustainable Consumption and Production. Workshop of the Sustainable Consumption Research Exchange (SCORE!) Network. Copenhagen. Pitt, M. M., Rosenzweig, M. R., & Hassan, N. (2006). Sharing the Burden of Disease: gender, the household division of labor and the health effects of indoor air pollution in Bangladesh and India.
98 Rai, V., & Victor, D. (2009). Climate Change and the Energy Challenge: A Pragmatic Approach for India. Economic and Political Weekly , 44 (31), 1-7. Rehfuess, E. (2006). Fuel for Life: houeshold energy and health. France: World Health Organization. Rehfuess, E., Mehta, S., & Pruss-Ustan, A. (2006). Assessing Household Solid Fuel Use: Multiple Implications for the Millenium Development Goals. Environmental Health Perspectives , 114 (3), 373-378. Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1997). Chapter 6 Technological Change. Roden, C. A., Bond, T. C., Conway, S., Pinel, A., MacCarty, N., & Still, D. (2009). Laboratory and Field Investigations of Particulate and Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Traditional and Improved Cookstoves. Atmospheric Envrionment , 43, 1170-1181. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Rosenthal, E. (2009, Apirl 16). Soot From Third-World Stoves is New Target in Climate Fight. The New York Times , p. A18. Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2009). Complexity and Transition Management. Journal of Industrial Ecology , 13 (2), 184-196. Rouse, J. (1999). Improved Biomass Cookstove Programmes: Fundamental Criteria for Success. MA Rural Development Dissertation, University of Sussex, The Centre for the Comparative Study of Culture, Development & the Environment. Schlag, N., & Zuzarte, F. (2008). Market Barriers to Clean Cooking Fuels in SubSaharan Africa: a review of literature. Stockhold Environment Institute. Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihood Perspectives and Rural Development. Journal of Peasant Studies , 36 (1). Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2008). Social-ecological Resilience and Socio-Technical Transitions: critical issues for sustainability governance. Brighton: STEPS Centre www.steps-centre.org/publications. Smith, K. R. (2009). Recent Health Effects Results from Guatemala: Implications for the Stove Community. Presentation, PCIA Forum, Kampala. Smith, K. R. (2008). Wood: The Fuel the Warms You Thrice. In C. Colfer, Human Health and Forests: A Global Overview of Issues, Practice and Policy (pp. 97111). London: Earthscan.
99 Stinton, J. E., Smith, K. R., Peabody, J. W., Yaping, L., Xiliang, Z., Edwards, R., et al. (2004). An Assessment of Programs to Primote Improved Household Stoves in China. Energy for Sustainable Development , 8 (3), 33-52. Subsidio Focalizado al Gas Propano Iniciaría en Octubre. (2010, April 29). El Salvador.com . Tanahashi, H. (2008). Marketing Concepts for Internet Strategy- The Innovater Theory. Retrieved June 1, 2010, from MITSUE-Links: http://www.mitsue.co.jp/english/case/concept/02.html Taylor, R. P. (2009). The Uses of Laboratory Testing of Biomass Cookstoves and the Shortcomings of the Dominant US Protocal. Masters of Science Thesis, Iowa State University, Mechanical Engineering, Ames, Iowa. Terrado, E. N., & Eitel, B. (2005). Pilot Commercialization of Improved Cookstoves in Nicaragua. Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme Technical Paper, World Bank Group. The World Bank. (2005). El Salvador Policy Assesment: Strengthening Social Policy. The World Bank. Troncoso, K., Castillo, A., & Merino, L. (2009). Stakeholder Perspectives in a Cookstove Implementation project in Rural Mexico. Troncoso, K., Castillo, A., Masera, O., & Merino, L. (2007). Social Perceptions About a Technolgical Innovation for Fuelwood Cooking: Case Study in Rural Mexico. Energy Policy , 35, 2799-2810. Vob, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., & Kemp, R. (2006). Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Northampton: Edward Elgar. Wallmo, K., & Jacobson, S. (1998). A Social and Environmental Evaluation of FuelEfficient Cookstoves and Conservation in Uganda. Envrionmental Conservation , 25 (2), 99-108. Wilkinson, P., Smith, K. R., Davies, M., Adair, H., Armstrong, B. G., Barrett, M., et al. (2009). Public Health Benefits of Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse-Gas Emissions: Household Energy. The Lancet , 374, 1917-1929. Winrock International. (2004). Household Energy, Indoor Air Pollution and Health: overview of experiences and lessons in Guatemala. US Environmental Protection Agency, Partnership for Clean Indoor Air. World Health Organization. (2009). Global Health Risks: mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks. World Health Organization.
100 Wuyuan, P., Zerriffi, H., & Jihua, P. (2008). Household Level Fuel Switching in Rural Hubei. Working Paper, Stanford University, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development. Zhang, J., & Smith, K. (2007). Household Air Pollution from Coal and Biomass Fuels in China: Measurements, Health Impacts and Interventions. Envrionmental Health Perspectives , 115 (6), 848-855.
101 APPENDIX I INTERVIEW GUIDE-SPANISH JSA_____
Lugar:
Fecha:
Preguntas para Usuarios de la Justa Discusión Libre 1. Cuéntame la historia de cómo ha cambiado los métodos de cocinar durante su vida. ¿A usted le gusta cocinar o preferiría usted hacer otras cosas? ¿Cómo piensa que sus hijos van a cocinar? 2. Descríbame un día típico en la cocina. ¿Cambia durante la semana? ¿Cambia durante el año? 3. ¿Cómo y de quien oyó de la Cocina Justa para la primera vez? ¿Cómo decidió construirlo? ¿Cuáles fueron los factores o personas que influyeron la decisión suya? ¿Esta satisfecho con la decisión? Características 4. ¿En su opinión, cual son las ventajas de usar la cocina mejorada Justa? No Humo
Ahorra Leña
Cocina Mas de un Solo
5. ¿En su opinión, cuál son las ventajas de usar la cocina de Gas? Cocina Rápida
Encienda Rápida
Desayuno
6. ¿En su opinión, cuál son las ventajas de usar el Fuego Tradicional o Fogón Abierta/Tres Piedras/Hornilla/Trebe? Sistema de Cocinar 7. ¿Cuántas personas comen aquí? Hombres(15-59)______ Mujeres(15+)_______ Hombres Mayores(mas de 59)______ La Justa
Niños(menos de 15)_______
102 8. Ha tenido por _______ años y ______ meses 9. Utiliza:
Todos los Días
10. Utiliza para preparar:
Algunos Días
Almuerzo
Una Vez la Semana Desayuno
Una Vez la Mes Cena
Nunca
Otra
11. ¿Cuáles alimentos preparan con la Justa? 12. ¿Utiliza la Justa para otras cosas además que cocine para la familia? El Gas 13. Ha tenido por _______ años y ______ meses 14. Utiliza:
Todos los Días
15. Utiliza para preparar:
Algunos Días
Almuerzo
Una Vez la Semana Desayuno
Una Vez la Mes Cena
Nunca
Otra
16. ¿Cuáles alimentos preparan con el Gas? 17. ¿Utiliza el Gas para otras cosas además que cocine para la familia? El Fuego Tradicional 18. ¿Antes de construir la Justa, que usaba para cocinar con leña? HornillaComal
Trebe/Abierta
19. Utiliza:
20. Utiliza para preparar:
Cocina (e.g. Lorena) Otra:
Todos los Días
Algunos Días
Almuerzo
Una Vez la Semana Desayuno
21. ¿Cuáles alimentos preparan con el Fuego Tradicional?
Una Vez la Mes Cena
Nunca
Otra
103 22. ¿Utiliza el Fuego Tradicional para otras cosas además que cocine para la familia? 23. ¿Utiliza energía eléctrica para cocinar?
Más Información:
Todos los Días
Algunos Días
Una Vez la Semana
Una Vez la Mes
Nunca
24. (Si usa mas de un método de cocinar) ¿Por qué sigue usando varios métodos de cocinar? ¿Por qué no deja los demás y solo utiliza su mas preferida? (Si usa sola una) ¿Por qué solo usa ____ para cocinar, por qué ha dejado otros métodos? 25. ¿Ahora, dedica más o menos tiempo a cocinar que antes de tener la Justa? ¿Por qué? Mismo
Mas
Menos
26. ¿Ahora, se disfruta cocinar más o menos que antes de tener la Justa? ¿Por qué? Mismo
Mas
Menos
27. ¿Es diferente el sabor de la comida que antes de tener la Justa? ¿Cómo? Mismo
Mejor
Peor
28. ¿Cuánto tiempo pasa en la cocina cada día? < 2 hora
2-3 horas
3-4 horas
4-5 horas
5-6 horas
6-7 horas
Mantenimiento y Operación de la Justa 29. ¿Quién construyo su Justa y cuánto gastó? b. Polleton: Materiales: Mano de Obra: Adorno:
a. Don Jorge (ONG) Albañil Local: _____________ 30. ¿La ha modificado? Adornado
Cambios Operacional
Otros:
31. ¿Cómo siente usted del mantenimiento de la Justa? a.
Difícil
Mas o Menos
Fácil
Es
> 7 horas
104
b. ¿Por qué? 32. ¿Cuánto veces hace lo siguiente, usted: a. Limpia la ceniza de la caja de combustión: ________ por día/semana/mes/año b. Limpia el hollín y lava la plancha: ________ por día/semana/mes/año c. Limpia el hollín de la chimenea: ________ por día/semana/mes/año d. Limpia el cascajo: ________ por día/semana/mes/año e. ¿Ha cambiado el cascajo? SI
NO cuantas veces_____
33. ¿Qué otro procedimiento realiza usted para mantener y proteger la cocina? 34. ¿Ha tenido algunos problemas con el Justa? Explica. 35. ¿Se ha quebrado algo y en el caso, lo ha reparado? a. Chimenea:
Grietas
Quebrada
Reparada
Grietas
Quebrada
Reparada
c. Exterior:
Grietas
Quebrado
Reparada
d. Plancha:
Alabeada
Quebrada
Reparada
b. Caja
de
Combustión:
e. Otro: __________________
Grietas
Quebrada
f. ¿Quién lo hizo la reparación? _________________ 36. ¿Si hubiera un problema, a donde o a quien acude para reparar la Justa?
Reparada
105
Fuel 37. Cantidad de leña utilizada actualmente ustedes: a. ¿Por cuánto tiempo dura un pante de leña? ________ meses _______ semanas b. ¿Qué cantidad de leña utiliza en un día? c. ¿Qué es un pante, u otro medido? 38. ¿Cuánto leña compra cada año (o invierno)? __________ pantes 39. ¿Cuánto cuesta la leña que compró usted mas reciente? a. $_________ por pante
b. ¿De quién compro la leña?
40. Recoger de Leña a. ¿De dónde recoge la leña que no compra? Alrededor de Casa
Terreno Propio
Terreno Alquilado
Quebradas
Otros: b. ¿De dónde saca la leña? Poda de Frutales y Café
Poda y limpia para cultivos o milpa
Poda de árboles no-frutales (cercas etc.)
Tala completo de árboles de edad
Otros: c. ¿Cómo lleva la leña a la casa? ¿Lleva de lejos? ¿Cuánto pagó? En Bus/Carro
Caballo
Distancia/Tiempo: ___________
A Lomo Costo de Transporte: $______ por
pante 41. Trabajo de Recoger a. ¿Quién en la familia trabaja para recoger la leña?
106 Hombres
Mujeres
Niños
b. ¿En que épocas recoja la leña, y cuantos días de semana ocupa? Invierno
Meses:
Verano
____________ días por semana 42. ¿Quién corta/raja la leña en la casa? ¿Cuánto tiempo por semana ocupa la corta/raja de leña? a. b. ______ horas/semana Hombres Mujeres Niños 43. ¿Ocupa mas tiempo preparando la leña para la Justa que el Fuego Tradicional? Mas
Igual
Menos
44. Chirivisco a. Usa chirivisco con la Justa? Cada Vez
Una Vez al Día
Nunca b. ¿Qué utiliza como
chirivisco a encender el fuego? Ramitas
Olotes/Tusas
De Cocos
Basura
Papel
Otros: c. ¿Si son ramitas, busca los chiriviscos alrededor de la casa? ¿Quién los recoge? SI
45. qué?
NO Hombres Mujeres Niños No: _______________ Tiempo/día: ________________ a. ¿Qué especias de árboles prefiere mas como leña para usar para cocinar? ¿Por
b. ¿De donde la obtiene estas especias? ¿Es fácil de obtenerlos? 46. a. ¿En vez de leña utiliza otras cosas para la Justa? o el Fuego Tradicional? Siempre
De Menudo
De Vez en Cuando
Raramente
Nunca
Desechos de Cultivos
Tusa/Olotes
Cocos
Basura
Carbon
107
b. ¿En vez de leña utiliza otras cosas para el Fuego Tradicional? Siempre
De Menudo
De Vez en Cuando
Raramente
Nunca
Desechos de Cultivos
Tusa/Olotes
Cocos
Basura
Carbon
47. Cambia en la usa de Leña y Gas a. ¿Antes de tener la cocina Justa, cuánto tiempo duraba un pante de leña? _______ meses ______ semanas b. ¿Antes de tener la Justa, qué cantidad de leña utilizaba por dia? c. ¿Antes de tener la Justa, cuánta leña tenía que comprar en un año? __________ pantes c. ¿Entonces, cree usted que utiliza menos leña actualmente que antes? ¿Cuánto? Menos
Igual
Mas
________ % d. ¿Cuánto tiempo dura un tambo de Gas de 25 libras actualmente? ________ meses _______ semanas ________ días e. ¿Antes de tener la cocina Justa cuánto tiempo duraba un tambo de Gas? ________ meses _______ semanas ________ días
48. Venta de Leña: a. ¿Vende leña usted? SI
__________ pantes/año NO b. Si dice que ahorra leña ¿Con la reducción en usa de leña pensará vender en el
futuro? SI
NO c. ¿Por qué?
Percepciones de Salud 49. Mientras Cocina a. ¿Cuándo está cocinando, el humo le da tos o molesta la garganta? SI
NO
108 b. ¿Cuándo está cocinando o enseguida después, tiene dolor de cabeza? SI
NO
c. ¿Cuándo está cocinando, le molestan los ojos? SI
NO
d. ¿Cuándo está cocinando, le duele la espalda o cuerpo? SI
NO
50. a. ¿Cree usted que la reducción de humo ha influido su salud en alguna manera? Explica: SI
NO
b. ¿Y la salud de sus hijos? Explica: SI
NO
Pensamientos Sobre Otras Participantes 51. ¿A otra gente le han gustado sus cocinas mejoradas Justas? ¿Por qué? 52. ¿A alguna gente NO le han gustado sus Justas o ha dejado usarlas? ¿Por qué? 53. ¿Por qué no han conseguido la Justa mas gente en la comunidad? Razones: Características de la Cocina 54. ¿Cocina en el aire libre o adentro? Aire Libre
Adentro 55. Si adentro, ¿la cocina está?
Junto a la casa principal
Una construcción aparte
56. La cocina es: Completamente encerrada
Principalmente encerrada
Abierta con mucha ventilación
La cocina está construido con: Materiales Permanentes (Como Bloque)
Materiales Provisionales (Como Madera/Lamina)
58. ¿Qué son sus planes para la cocina en el futuro?
57.
109
Demográficos 59. Jefes de Familia: Entrevistó a. Hombre ______
Edad:
Grado Cumplido:
SI
NO
b. Mujer ______
Edad:
Grado Cumplido:
SI
NO
60. ¿Qué tipos de trabajo hace su familia? Agricultura
Empresa Pequeña Local
Afuera de Comunidad
Afuera de País
Otros: 61. ¿Qué cantidad de terreno tienen ustedes? ¿Para qué utiliza? 62. ¿Recibe
SI
NO
remesas?
63. ¿Tiene la siguiente en la casa? Paredes de Bloque o Ladrillo
Electricidad
Televisor
Refrigerador
Carro
DVD/VHS
¿Cuánto Pagaría? ¿Si no tuviera su cocina mejorada Justa (por razón de mover casas, o terremoto, o otra razón), pagaría $75 para tener uno así? (enseña foto) SI
NO
¿O pagaría $8 por mes por un año? SI
¿Comentarios?
NO
110 APPENDIX II INTERVIEW GUIDE- ENGLISH JSA_____
Date: Questions for Justa Users
Free Discussion 1. Tell me about how the methods of cooking have changed during your life. Do you enjoy cooking or would you prefer to do other things? How do you think your kids are going to cook? 2. Describe for me a typical day in the kitchen. Does it change during the week, or during the year? 3. How did you hear about the Justa cookstove for the first time? And from whom? Why did you decided to build one? What were the factors or people that influenced your decision? Are you satisfied with the decision? Characteristics 4. In your opinion what are the advantages of using the Justa improved cookstove? 5. In your opinion what are the advantages of using a gas stove (LPG)? 6. In your opinion what are the advantages of using a traditional open fire? Cooking Systems 7. How many people eat here? Men (15-59)______ Women (15+)_______ Men (more then 59)______
Children (less then 15)_______
Older
The Justa 8. Have had the stove for _____ years and _____ months 9. it:
Use Everyday
Some Days
Once a Week
Once a Month
Never
111 10. Use it prepare:
Lunch
Breakfast
Dinner
Other
to
11. What foods do you prepare with the Justa? 12. Do you use the Justa for other things besides cooking for the family? Gas Stove 13. Have had the gas stove for _____ years and _____ months 14. it:
Use Everyday
15. Use it prepare:
Some Days
Lunch
Once a Week
Breakfast
Once a Month
Dinner
Never
Other
to
16. What foods do you prepare with gas (LPG)? 17. Do you use gas stove for other things besides cooking for the family? Traditional Fire 18. Before building the Justa cookstove what did you use in order to cook with firewood? U-Shaped
3-Stone
Other Type of Stove
19. Use it: Everyday 20. Use it prepare:
Some Days Lunch
Once a Week Breakfast
Once a Month Dinner
Never
Other
to
21. What foods do you prepare with the traditional fire? 22. Do you use traditional fire for other things besides cooking for the family? 23. Do you use electricity for cooking? 24. Why do you continue to use various methods for cooking? Why don‟t you just use your favorite method of cooking? (or) Why do you only use ____ for cooking and not others?
112 25. Do you spend more or less time cooking now with the Justa? Why? 26. Do you enjoy cooking more or less now that you are using the Justa? Why? 27. Is the flavor of the food cooked with the Justa different then before? How? 28. How much time do you spend in the kitchen per day? Maintenance and Operation of the Justa 29. Who built your Justa stove and how much did it cost? 30. Have you modified the stove in any way? 31. How do you feel about the maintenance of the Justa stove? 32. How often do you do the following: a. Clean the ash from the combustion chamber: b. Clean the soot off and wash the bottom of the skillet: c. Clean the soot from the chimney: d. Clean the pumice: e. Have you changed the pumice? 33. Are there any other procedures you do to maintain and protect the stove? 34. Have you had any problems with the Justa? Explain: 35. Has anything broken (cracks or completely) and if so have you repaired it? a. Chimney b. Combustion Chamber c. Exterior d. Skillet e. Other f. Who made the repairs? 36. If you had a problem with the stove where or to whom would you go in order to repair the Justa stove? Fuel 37. Quantity of fuel that you currently use: a. How long does a pante (local measurement for a stack of firewood) last? b. How much firewood do you use in a day?
113 38. How much wood do you buy each year? 39. How much did the wood you bought most recently cost? Who did you buy it from? 40. Firewood Collection a. From where do you collect the firewood that you don‟t buy? Around the House
Own Land
Rented Land
Ravines
b. From what activity do you create the firewood to collect? Pruning of Fruit Trees
Clearing of land to plant crops
Pruning of nonfruit trees
Cutting down of whole trees
c. How do you carry the firewood to the house? How far is it? How much does it cost? In Bus/Car
Horse
By Person
41. Collection Work a. Who in the family collects the firewood? b. In what seasons do you collect wood and how many days of the week does it require? 42. Who splits the wood at the house, how much time per week does it take? 43. Does it take more or less time to prepare wood for the Justa then a traditional fire? 44. Kindling a. Do you use kindling with the Justa? b. What do you use as kindling to light the fire? c. If you use branches who collects them and where? 45. a. What species of trees do you most prefer to use as firewood for cooking? Why? b. Where do you obtain this wood, is it easy to get? 46. Do you use things other than firewood to cook with the Justa? With the traditional fire? 47. Changes in the use of gas and firewood a. Before you had the Justa cookstove, how long did a pante last? b. Before you had the Justa cookstove, how much firewood did you use in a day?
114 c. Before you had the Justa cookstove, how much firewood did you buy each year? d. Then, do you believe that you use less firewood now than before? How much less? e. How much time does a tank of gas last you now? f. Before you had the Justa cookstove, how much time did a tank of gas last you? 48. Sale of wood a. Do you sell wood, how much? b. With the reduction of firewood needed for cooking will you think about selling wood in the future? Why or why not? Health Perceptions 49. While Cooking a. When you are cooking does the smoke cause you to cough or bother your throat? b. When you are cooking or afterwards do you have headaches? c. When you are cooking do your eyes bother you? d. When you are cooking does your back hurt? 50. Do you believe that the reduction of smoke has influenced your health in some way? The health of your children? Explain: Thoughts About Other Participants 51. Have other people liked their Justa cookstoves? Why? 52. Have some people no liked their Justa cookstoves, or decided not to use them? Why? 53. Why have more people in the community not obtained Justa cookstoves? Kitchen Characteristics 54. Do you cook inside or out? 55. Is the kitchen separated from or part of the house? 56. How enclosed is the cooking space? 57. What materials is the kitchen constructed out of? (permanent or provisional)
115 58. Do you have plans to modify or change your kitchen in the future? Demographics 59. Heads of household: (Male/Female, Age, Education Completed, Interviewed) 60. What types of work does your family do? 61. How much land do you have? What do you use it for? 62. Does your family receive remittances from abroad? 63. Do you have the following in your house? Brick or Block Walls
Electricity
Television
Fridge
Car
DVD/VHS
116 APPENDIX III INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
117 APPENDIX IV WHO CAUSE OF DEATH These calculations came by taking the deaths by cause estimates for 2004 from the World Health Organization for the Low Income and Lower-Middle Income Countries. This totaled approximately 45 million. 1.95 million or 4.33% of these the WHO organization attributed to smoke from cooking fires. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that in 2006 85% of people cooking with biomass lived in rural areas. Therefore if you assume that the deaths from that are proportional as well that means 1.65 million rural deaths out of 23.97 million can be attributed to smoke from cooking fires. Thus we can estimate that 7% of deaths in rural areas in developing countries (the focus of this paper) can be attributed to smoke from cooking fires.
118 APPENDIX V STOVE USE INDEX CALCULATIONS The Stove Use Index combined several factors to measure the extent to which a household used each of the three cooking technologies. 1. How many days per week was the stove utilized? 2. How many meals per day was it utilized? 3. How many different food items were prepared with this stove? These numbers were then normalized from 1 (low use) to 10 (high use). SurveyID
Justa Use Freq.
Justa # of Meals/Day
JSA01
4
2
Justa Food Items (beyond Tortillas) 3
JSA02
4
2
JSA03
4
JSA04 JSA05
Justa Rating
Normalized Justa Rating
LPG Use Freq.
LPG # of Meals/Day
9
9
4
1
2
8
8
3
1
3
3
10
10
3
1
4
1
0
5
5
4
3
4
3
3
10
10
0
0
JSA06
4
3
0
7
7
3
1
JSA07
3
1
0
4
4
4
3
JSA08
4
3
2
9
9
3
3
JSA09
4
2
1
7
7
4
3
JSA10
4
1
0
5
5
4
3
JSA11
4
3
3
10
10
3
1
JSA12
4
3
3
10
10
3
0
JSA13
4
3
3
10
10
4
1
JSA14
4
3
1
8
8
4
2
JSA15
3
3
3
9
9
4
0
JSA16
4
3
1
8
8
4
3
JSA17
4
1
1
6
6
4
2
JSA18
4
3
3
10
10
4
0
JSA19
4
3
3
10
10
4
1
Normalized LPG Rating 6
Fire Use Freq. 0
Fire Food Items 0
Fire Rating 0
Normalized Fire Rating 0
LPG Food Items 2
LPG Rating 7
Fire # of Meals/Day 0
2
6
5
3
1
3
7
8
2
6
5
0
0
1
1
1
119 3
10
8
3
1
2
6
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
5
3
0
3
6
7
5
12
10
0
0
0
0
0
4
10
8
3
0
2
5
6
5
12
10
3
1
4
8
9
4
11
9
4
2
3
9
10
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
3
3
0
1
4
4
3
8
7
0
0
1
1
1
2
8
7
4
1
3
8
9
2
6
5
2
0
3
5
6
4
11
9
4
0
3
7
8
2
8
7
3
0
3
6
7
1
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
5
1
0
1
2
2
120 APPENDIX VI REDUCTION IN FUELWOOD USE CALCULATIONS In order to more easily compare fuel use between households, a unit called a „Standard Adult‟ has been developed (Household Energy and Health Project, 2006). A male between 15-65 is 1.0, a female over 15 is 0.8 a child under 15 is 0.5 and a male over the age of 65 is 0.8. The totals ranged from 1.6 to 7.9 standard adults per household. There were 11 current Justa users who reported their pre-Justa fuelwood usage and 8 non-Justa users giving a total of 19 households. From these households it was calculated that they utilized 1.2 pantes of wood per standard adult. 15 of the Justa using households reported their current wood use which averaged out to 0.7 pantes of wood per standard adult. This comes to almost a 50% reduction in wood use. A pante of wood is a local measurement used for a standard pile of cut fuelwood. It is not exact but the approximate dimensions are widely known and agreed upon (wood is often sold this way). I compared two different pantes of wood to get an approximate idea. The size is measured at 1.8m wide, 1.5m tall with pieces of wood about 0.7m long. The two pantes I measured were somewhat different but averaged 118 logs, weighing 778 kilograms, totally approximately 1.1 meters cubed of wood.
