Who adopts improved fuels and cookstoves? A systematic review

Jessica J Lewis, Subhrendu K Pattanayak, Jessica J Lewis, Subhrendu K Pattanayak

Abstract

Background: The global focus on improved cookstoves (ICSs) and clean fuels has increased because of their potential for delivering triple dividends: household health, local environmental quality, and regional climate benefits. However, ICS and clean fuel dissemination programs have met with low rates of adoption.

Objectives: We reviewed empirical studies on ICSs and fuel choice to describe the literature, examine determinants of fuel and stove choice, and identify knowledge gaps.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature on the adoption of ICSs or cleaner fuels by households in developing countries. Results are synthesized through a simple vote-counting meta-analysis.

Results: We identified 32 research studies that reported 146 separate regression analyses of ICS adoption (11 analyses) or fuel choice (135 analyses) from Asia (60%), Africa (27%), and Latin America (19%). Most studies apply multivariate regression methods to consider 7-13 determinants of choice. Income, education, and urban location were positively associated with adoption in most but not all studies. However, the influence of fuel availability and prices, household size and composition, and sex is unclear. Potentially important drivers such as credit, supply-chain strengthening, and social marketing have been ignored.

Conclusions: Adoption studies of ICSs or clean energy are scarce, scattered, and of differential quality, even though global distribution programs are quickly expanding. Future research should examine an expanded set of contextual variables to improve implementation of stove programs that can realize the "win-win-win" of health, local environmental quality, and climate associated with these technologies.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare they have no actual or potential competing financial interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) flow diagram for searching and extracting data (adapted from Moher et al. 2009). aOne article contained both ICS and fuel choice analyses.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Systematic review of variables that influence the adoption of ICSs. Each analysis of ICS adoption casts one “vote” for every variable that it includes. The sign of the vote (positive or negative) reflects the direction of the association with ICS adoption. Abbreviations: agri, agriculture; avail, availability; educ, education; elec, electricity; empl, employment; kero, kerosene; lab, labor; soc marg, socially marginal status; fem, female; HH, household. aChild is a variable created by merging three variables: presence of children in household, number of children, and proportion of children < 15 years of age. bAge is a variable created by merging four variables: age of head of household, age of head of household if > 30 years of age, wife’s age, and mean household age (see Supplemental Material, Table 1).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Systematic review of variables that influence choice of cooking fuels. Each analysis of clean fuel choice casts one “vote” for every variable that it includes. The sign of the vote (positive or negative) reflects the direction of the association with clean fuel choice. Abbreviations: agri, agriculture; avail, availability; cas, caual; educ, education; elec, electricity; empl, employment; kero, kerosene; lab, labor; soc marg, socially marginal status; fem, female; HH, household; rms, rooms per household. aChild is a variable created by merging three variables: presence of children in household, number of children, and proportion of children < 15 years of age. bAge is a variable created by merging four variables: age of head of household, age of head of household if > 30 years of age, wife’s age, and mean household age (see Supplemental Material, Table 1).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Systematic review of variables that influence choice of cooking fuels: robustness check excluding the large number of Indian analyses. Each analysis of clean fuel choice casts one “vote” for every variable that it includes. The sign of the vote (positive or negative) reflects the direction of the association with clean fuel choice. Only analyses that were conducted in countries other than India are included in this test for robustness. Abbreviations: agri, agriculture; avail, availability; cas, caual; educ, education; elec, electricity; empl, employment; kero, kerosene; lab, labor; soc marg, socially marginal status; fem, female; HH, household; rms, rooms per household. aChild is a variable created by merging three variables: presence of children in household, number of children, and proportion of children < 15 years of age. bAge is a variable created by merging four variables: age of head of household, age of head of household if > 30 years of age, wife’s age, and mean household age (see Supplemental Material, Table 1).

References

    1. Adkins E, Eapen S, Kaluwile F, Nair G, Modi V. Off-grid energy services for the poor: introducing LED lighting in the Millennium Villages Project in Malawi. Energy Policy. 2010;38:1087–1097.
    1. Amacher GS, Hyde WF, Joshee BR. The adoption of consumption technologies under uncertainty: a case of improved stoves in Nepal. J Econ Dev. 1992;17(2):93–105.
    1. Amacher GS, Hyde WF, Kanel KR. Household fuelwood demand and supply in Nepal’s Tarai and mid-hills: choice between cash outlays and labor opportunity. World Dev. 1996;24(11):1725–1736.
    1. Arthur MFSR, Zahran S, Bucini G. On the adoption of electricity as a domestic source by Mozambican households. Energy Policy. 2010;38(11):7235–7249.
    1. Bailis R, Cowan A, Berrueta V, Masera O. Arresting the killer in the kitchen: the promises and pitfalls of commercializing improved cookstoves. World Dev. 2009;37(10):1694–1705.
    1. Baland JM, Bardhan P, Das S, Mookherjee D, Sarkar R. The environmental impact of poverty: evidence from firewood collection in rural Nepal. Econ Dev Cult Change. 2010;59(1):23–61.
    1. Barnes DF, Openshaw K, Smith KR, van der Plas R. The design and diffusion of improved cooking stoves. World Bank Res Obs. 1993;8(2):119–141.
    1. Beach RH, Pattanayak SK, Yang J-C, Murray BC, Abt RC. Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: a review and synthesis. Forest Policy Econ. 2005;7(3):261–281.
    1. Bruce N, Perez-Padilla R, Albalak R. Indoor air pollution in developing countries: a major environmental and public health challenge. Bull World Health Organ. 2000;78(9):1078–1092.
    1. Campbell BM, Vermeulen SJ, Mangono JJ, Mabugu R. The energy transition in action: urban domestic fuel choices in a changing Zimbabwe. Energy Policy. 2003;31(6):553–562.
    1. Chalmers I. If evidence-informed policy works in practice, does it matter if it doesn’t work in theory? Evidence Policy. 2005;1(2):227–242.
    1. Chambwera M, Folmer H. Fuel switching in Harare: an almost ideal demand system approach. Energy Policy. 2007;35(4):2538–2548.
    1. Chaudhuri S, Pfaff ASP. 2003. Fuel-Choice and Indoor Air Quality: A Household-Level Perspective on Economic Growth and the Environment. New York:Department of Economics and School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University.
    1. Chen L, Heerink N, van den Berg M. Energy consumption in rural China: a household model for three villages in Jiangxi Province. Ecol Econ. 2006;58(2):407–420.
    1. Cook T, Cooper H, Corday D, Hartmann H, Hedges L, Light R, et al. 1992. Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.
    1. Damte A, Koch SF. 2011. Clean Fuel Saving Technology Adoption in Urban Ethiopia. Department of Economics Working Paper Series. Pretoria:University of Pretoria.
    1. DeFries R, Pandey D. Urbanization, the energy ladder and forest transitions in India’s emerging economy. Land Use Policy. 2010;27(2):130–138.
    1. Edwards JHY, Langpap C. Startup costs and the decision to switch from firewood to gas fuel. Land Econ. 2005;81(4):570–586.
    1. El Tayeb Muneer S, Mukhtar Mohamed EW. Adoption of biomass improved cookstoves in a patriarchal society: an example from Sudan. Sci Total Environ. 2003;307(1–3):259–266.
    1. Ezzati M, Bailis R, Kammen DM, Holloway T, Price L, Cifuentes LA, et al. Energy management and global health. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2004;29(1):383–419.
    1. Farsi M, Filippini M, Pachauri S. Fuel choices in urban Indian households. Environ Dev Econ. 2007;12(06):757–774.
    1. Flodgren G, Eccles M, Shepperd S, Scott A, Parmelli E, Beyer F.2011An overview of reviews evaluating the effectiveness of financial incentives in changing healthcare professional behaviours and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (7CD009255; doi: [Online 6 July 2011]10.1002/14651858.CD009255
    1. Gebreegziabher Z, Mekonnen A, Kassie M, Köhlin G. 2009. Urban Energy Transition and Technology Adoption: The Case of Tigrai, Northern Ethiopia. Gothenburg, Sweden:University of Gothenburg. Available: [accessed 26 March 2012].
    1. Geist HJ, Lambin EF. 2001. What Drives Tropical Deforestation? A Meta-Analysis of Proximate and Underlying Causes of Deforestation Based on Subnational Scale Case Study Evidence. LUCC Report Series No. 4. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium:University of Louvain.
    1. Gerrard M, Gibbons F, Bushman B. Relation between perceived vulnerability to HIV and precautionary sexual behavior. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(3):390–409.
    1. Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E, Marcus AC. Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(8):1261–1267.
    1. GACC (Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves) 2011. Igniting Change: A Strategy for Universal Adoption of Clean Cookstoves and Fuels. Washington, DC:Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves.
    1. Google. 2011. Google Scholar homepage. Available: [accessed 20 June 2011].
    1. Green LW, Ottoson JM, García C, Hiatt RA. Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30(1):151–174.
    1. Gundimeda H, Köhlin G. Fuel demand elasticities for energy and environmental policies: Indian sample survey evidence. Energy Econ. 2008;30(2):517–546.
    1. Gupta G, Köhlin G. Preferences for domestic fuel: analysis with socio-economic factors and rankings in Kolkata, India. Ecol Econ. 2006;57(1):107–121.
    1. Heltberg R. Fuel switching: evidence from eight developing countries. Energy Econ. 2004;26(5):869–887.
    1. Heltberg R. Factors determining household fuel choice in Guatemala. Environ Dev Econ. 2005;10(03):337–361.
    1. Hofstad O, Köhlin G, Namaalway F. 2009. How can emissions from woodfuel be reduced? In: Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options (Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Kanninen M, Sills E, Sunderlin WD, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S, eds). Bogor, Indonesia:Center for International Forestry Research, 237–248.
    1. Hölzel L, Härter M, Reese C, Kriston L. Risk factors for chronic depression—a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2011;129(1–3):1–13.
    1. Hosier RH, Dowd J. Household fuel choice in Zimbabwe: an empirical test of the energy ladder hypothesis. Resour Energy. 1987;9(4):347–361.
    1. Jack DW. 2006. Household Behavior and Energy Demand: Evidence from Peru [PhD Dissertation]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
    1. Kaul S, Liu Q. Rural household energy use in China. Energy. 1992;17(4):405–411.
    1. Kavi Kumar KS, Viswanathan B. Changing structure of income indoor air pollution relationship in India. Energy Policy. 2007;35(11):5496–5504.
    1. Kebede B, Bekele A, Kedir E. Can the urban poor afford modern energy? The case of Ethiopia. Energy Policy. 2002;30(11–12):1029–1045.
    1. Kemmler A. Factors influencing household access to electricity in India. Energy Sustain Dev. 2007;11(4):13–20.
    1. Khandker SR, Barnes DF, Samad HA. Energy Poverty in Rural and Urban India: Are the Energy Poor Also Income Poor? Policy Research Working Paper No 5463. 2010. Washington, DC:World Bank.
    1. Köhlin G, Sills EO, Pattanayak SK, Wilfong C. 2011. Energy, Gender and Development. Policy Research Working Paper, No. WPS 5800. Washington, DC:Social Dimensions of Climate Change Division, World Bank.
    1. Lamarre-Vincent J. 2011. Household Determinants and Respiratory Health Impacts of Fuel Switching in Indonesia [Master’s Thesis]. Durham, NC:Duke University.
    1. Legros G, Havet I, Bruce N, Bonjour S. 2009. The Energy Access Situation in Developing Countries: A Review Focusing on the Least Developed Countries and Sub-Saharan Africa. New York:United Nations Development Programme and World Health Organization.
    1. Louw K, Conradie B, Howells M, Dekenah M. Determinants of electricity demand for newly electrified low-income African households. Energy Policy. 2008;36:2812–2818.
    1. Madon T, Hofman KJ, Kupfer L, Glass RI. Public health. Implementation science. Science. 2007;318(5857):1728–1729.
    1. Martin WJ, Glass RI, Balbus JM, Collins FS. Public health. A major environmental cause of death. Science. 2011;334(6053):180–181.
    1. Masera OR, Saatkamp BD, Kammen DM. From linear fuel switching to multiple cooking strategies: a critique and alternative to the energy ladder model. World Dev. 2000;28(12):2083–2103.
    1. McEachern M, Hanson S. Socio-geographic perception in the diffusion of innovation: solar energy technology in Sri Lanka. Energy Policy. 2008;36(7):2578–2590.
    1. Mitchell A. 2010. Indoor Air Pollution: Technologies to Reduce Emissions Harmful to Health: Report of a Landscape Analysis of Evidence and Experience.Washington, DC:USAID-TRAction.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, the PRISMA Group. 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PloS Med 67e1000097; doi: [Online 21 July 2009]10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
    1. Ouedraogo B. Household energy preferences for cooking in urban Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Energy Policy. 2006;34(18):3787–3795.
    1. Pandey S, Yadama GN. Community development programs in Nepal: a test of diffusion of innovation theory. Soc Serv Rev. 1992;66(4):582–597.
    1. Pattanayak SK, Mercer DE, Sills EO, Yang J-C. Taking Stock of Agroforestry Adoption Studies. Agrofor Syst. 2003;57(3):173–186.
    1. Pattanayak SK, Pfaff A. Behavior, environment, and health in developing countries: evaluation and valuation. Annu Rev Resour Econ. 2009;1:183–217.
    1. Peng W, Hisham Z, Pan J. Household level fuel switching in rural Hubei. Energy Sustain Dev. 2010;14(3):238–244.
    1. Pine K, Edwards R, Masera O, Schilmann A, Marrón-Mares A, Riojas-Rodríguez H. Adoption and use of improved biomass stoves in Rural Mexico. Energy Sustain Dev. 2011;15(2):176–183.
    1. Pohekar SD, Kumar D, Ramachandran M. Dissemination of cooking energy alternatives in India—a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2005;9(4):379–393.
    1. Ramanathan V, Carmichael G. Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon. Nat Geosci. 2008;1(4):221–227.
    1. Ramanathan V, Li F, Ramana MV, Praveen PS, Kim D, Corrigan CE, et al. 2007Atmospheric brown clouds: hemispherical and regional variations in long-range transport, absorption, and radiative forcing. J Geophys Res 112D22S21; doi: [Online 23 October 2007]10.1029/2006JD008124
    1. Rao MN, Reddy BS. Variations in energy use by Indian households: an analysis of micro level data. Energy. 2007;32(2):143–153.
    1. Rebane KL, Barham BL. Knowledge and adoption of solar home systems in rural Nicaragua. Energy Policy. 2011;39(6):3064–3075.
    1. Reddy BS. A multilogit model for fuel shifts in the domestic sector. Energy. 1995;20(9):929–936.
    1. Rehfuess EA, Briggs DJ, Joffe M, Best N. Bayesian modeling of household solid fuel use: insights towards designing effective interventions to promote fuel switching in Africa. Environ Res. 2010;110(7):725–732.
    1. Rehfuess EA, Mehta S, Prüss-Üstün A. Assessing household solid fuel use: multiple implications for the millennium development goals. Environ Health Perspect. 2006;114(114):373–378.
    1. Ruiz-Mercado I, Masera O, Zamora H, Smith KR.2011Adoption and sustained use of improved cookstoves. Energy Policy 397557–7566.; doi: [Online 15 April 2011]10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.02
    1. Sagar AD, Kartha S. Bioenergy and sustainable development? Ann Rev Environ Resour. 2007;32(1):131–167.
    1. ScienceDirect. 2011. ScienceDirect homepage. Available: [accessed 20 June 2011].
    1. Shindell DT, Kuylenstierna JCI, Raes F, Ramanathan V, Rosenthal E, Terry S, et al. 2011. Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone: Summary for Decision Makers. Nairobi:United Nations Environment Programme and World Meteorological Organization.
    1. Sinton JE, Smith KR, Peabody JW, Yaping L, Xiliang Z, Edwards R, et al. An assessment of programs to promote improved household stoves in China. Energy Sustain Dev. 2004;8(3):33–52.
    1. Slaski X, Thurber M. 2009. Research Note: Cookstoves and Obstacles to Technology Adoption by the Poor. Program on Energy and Sustainable Development Working Paper No. 89. Stanford, CA: Program on Energy and Sustainable Development.
    1. Smith KR, Jerrett M, Anderson HR, Burnett RT, Stone V, Derwent R, et al. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: health implications of short-lived greenhouse pollutants. Lancet. 2009;374(9707):2091–2103.
    1. Smith KR, McCracken JP, Weber MW, Hubbard A, Jenny A, Thompson LM, et al. Effect of reduction in household air pollution on childhood pneumonia in Guatemala (RESPIRE): a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9804):1717–1726.
    1. Smith KR, Mehta S, Feuz MM. 2004. Indoor air pollution from household use of solid fuels. In: Comparative Quantification of Health Risks: Global and Regional Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major Risk Factors (Ezzati M, ed). Geneva:World Health Organization, 1435–1494.
    1. Smith-Sivertsen T, Díaz E, Pope D, Lie RT, Díaz A, McCracken J, et al. Effect of reducing indoor air pollution on women’s respiratory symptoms and lung function: the RESPIRE randomized trial, Guatemala. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(2):211–220.
    1. Sorrell S. Improving the evidence base for energy policy: the role of systematic reviews. Energy Policy. 2007;35(3):1858–1871.
    1. Thomson Reuters. 2011. ISI Web of Science. New York:Thomson Reuters.
    1. van der Knaap LM, Leeuw FL, Bogaerts S, Nijssen LTJ. Combining Campbell standards and the realist evaluation approach. Am J Eval. 2008;29(1):48–57.
    1. Venkataraman C, Sagar AD, Habib G, Lam N, Smith KR. The Indian National Initiative for Advanced Biomass Cookstoves: the benefits of clean combustion. Energy Sustain Dev. 2010;14(2):63–72.
    1. Walekhwa PN, Mugisha J, Drake L. Biogas energy from family-sized digesters in Uganda: critical factors and policy implications. Energy Policy. 2009;37(7):2754–2762.
    1. Wendland KJ, Pattanayak SK, Sills E. 2011. Democracy and Dictatorship: Comparing Household Innovation across the Border of Benin and Togo. Raleigh, NC:North Carolina State University, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources.
    1. WHO. 2009. Global Health Risks: Mortality and Burden of Disease Attributable to Major Risks. Geneva:World Health Organization.
    1. World Bank. 2011. Household Cookstoves, Environment, Health, and Climate Change: A New Look at an Old Problem. Washington, DC:World Bank.
    1. Yan HJ. 2010. The Theoretic and Empirical Analysis on the Compatibility of Sustainable Development Strategies and Poverty Reduction Policies at Micro Level. Aix-en-Provence:Université de la Méditerranée Aix-Marseille II.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться